Censorship At The Checkout: Rights Violation or Pandering to Parents?

[Pangloss62]

Down here in Atlanta, GA, the large Publix supermarket chain has started placing plastic placards over the magazines located at the checkout in deference to the many "moms" who are concerned that their precious ones will be unduly influenced by the semi-nude models, references to SEX!, and all the other lurid and sensationalistic topics that are those publications' bread and butter. It kind of irked me, so I got into the habit of removing them and placing them over Good Housekeeping; that is until they started securing them with plastic clips. I spoke with the store manager to see who started this whole thing and found out it was a directive from Publix Headquarters. The manager also told me that she would cover up any publication if she received a complaint. Oh, really? How about covering up the Guns and Ammo magazine in the regular magazine isle? How about covering the God Wants You To Be Rich book on that book display? More to the point, those publishers pay money to be displayed at the checkout, using their lurid covers and topics to gain those "Point of Sale" customers. I don't buy those rags, but it's fun to look at and read the covers. Should the concerns of a few parents trump my right to at least see the product? Why not talk to your kids about marketing? They're just gonna be more curious if you cover the stuff up. Is anybody else with me on this?

[billybob]

So if the publishers of Guns and Ammo magazine paid money for it to be displayed at checkout, would you support their right to be displayed there?

Magazines that rely on prurient interest to draw their readership are a waste of trees. Personally, I don't waste time looking at magazine racks any more, the internet provides more than enough sleaze and stupidity without paying for more.Besides, the tackiest ones all seem to be targeted at women............

[SteveDallas]

I find main effect of those cards covering up the magazines is to draw the eye to a particular rack (pardon the pun!). "OH HEY THERE'S NASTY STUFF BACK HERE YOU BETTER NOT LOOK HERE OR IT'LL BURN YOUR EYEBALLS OFF!!!!" What self-respecting child wouldn't make a beeline for the card and peek behind it? If they think the effect of a particular magazine is that corrosive they should just not sell it at all. (Around here, Super Fresh, my usual haunt, doesn't have the cards, but Genuardi's used to--I haven't been there in a long time.)

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to address the "pandering to parents" point. No, they are in no way pandering to the parents. If they really wanted to pander to the parents they would get rid of the fucking candy bars.

[Pangloss62]

I wouldn't care if they put Guns and Ammo at the Checkout. I just used that as an example of a magazine some parents might complain about. I agree that those magazines are a waste (for some people), but it's such a subjective form of censorship. You can't protect your kid from our tacky, rediculous culture, only educate him or her about it.

I need to get to New Zealand. Love your little lambs! Ummmmm.

[mrnoodle]

There's no censorship happening here that I can see. No one has been barred from speaking or writing anything. Just because they hid the poontang from little eyes doesn't mean you're being oppressed.

[Pangloss62]

They're not covering "poontang," by which I assume you mean vaginas. They are covering up Cosmo, Vanity Fair, National Enquirer, etc. I don't buy those magazines or consider them worthy of praise, I just think it's ludicrous to put placards over these traditionally visible checkout area products because a few Christo-mommies complain. If you were the publisher of National Enquirer, wouldn't you protest if, all across America, your product's cover (it's most vital attribute) was being covered up? I would. Why aren't these moms complaining about all the sugary, overpriced cereal boxes with cartoon characters smiling at stroller eye level? Because they are prudes.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Why aren't these moms complaining about all the sugary, overpriced cereal boxes with cartoon characters smiling at stroller eye level?

Good question. People are fine with poison being peddled to their children, as long as it's an economy-stimulating consumer item or a dogma-reinforcing propoganda item. But the magazines, with the picture of the girl dressed up just like the girl in line right in front of you, those are unacceptable, because . . . because why exactly? Do you think they even know why they are protesting this, or is it just what the hive-mind has decreed?

[Pangloss62]

Well, Flint, being in Texas, you probably run into people who have a great fear of "immoral" materials ruining their children's minds. And since this is the philosophy section, let's consider this:

Many Fundamentalist Christians are big into responsibility and would tell you that they believe in free will; but they are constantly worried about our "immoral" culture and how it's dangerous to society (hang out with homosexuals and you might "become" one). Aren't they really making an argument for determinism? "My child will read about 'Great Sex Everyday' and think it's ok." And as to the half-naked models, they are more worried about the nudity than they are about the almost-unatainable skinny bodies that their daughters will later starve themselves to have.

[Pangloss62]

It's the parenting section. Philisophical Parenting.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

Philisophical Parenting

...works for me. My only child is a 4.5 month-old fetus, so I do "Theoretical Parenting"

[wolf]

It's not really censorship if they still let you buy them.

Even then, I don't think it's censorship, it's a matter of the market being controlled by consumer preference.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by wolf

consumer preference

"squeaky wheel gets the grease"

[wolf]

When you operate a retail store you can make your own decisions about your display space. There are other ways to get to the content.

I disagree with a local convenience store's policy not to stock Guns & Ammo, but I don't get my panties in a twist over it.

[Pangloss62]

I suppose you're right, wolf. And that's exactly what I did; I go to Kroger now. They don't cover the mags. "The market," much like "the majority," screw most of the shit up in the world. But as flint noted, in this case it was the minority.

I don't wear panties; in fact, today I'm freeballin!

[mrnoodle]

AFAIC, censorship is government regulation of printed or spoken material. I think the term gets used way too often in inappropriate circumstances. For example, a teacher telling you to shut up in class is not guilty of violating your "freedom of speech". A prudish parent who has the gall to consider certain material inappropriate for their children (how close-minded) is free to tell the grocery store that instructions for orgasm shouldn't be next to the bubble gum. What the store does afterwards is neither "free speech" or "censorship". It's a realization that the mom with 4 kids buys more groceries than the hippie with an axe to grind, thus affecting the bottom line.

And, if you think that Cosmo is worried about anything more profound than its own bottom line, you're fooling yourself. If "10 tips to fellate your man to nirvana" stops making them money, they will "censor" themselves and sell coloring books. It's all about the $.