TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

CVS

Boycotting Rolling Stone

Over Boston Bomber Cover

7/17/2013 9:50 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
Exclusive Details

0717_cvs_rollingstone_cover
update_bar
The Boston supermarket chain Roche Bros. is also boycotting the magazine -- a rep tells TMZ, "When Roche Bros. learned of the cover for the current issue of Rolling Stone, we chose not to offer that product for sale in our stores. We join with our customers and neighbors in focusing on the recovery of the victims and our community."

Walgreens and Stop & Shop have also boycotted the magazine.

gray-bar-update
CVS
apparently believes the First Amendment has limits ... because the pharmacy chain just announced it won't hawk the latest issue of Rolling Stone, featuring Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

A rep for CVS says "As a company with deep roots in New England and a strong presence in Boston, we believe this is the right decision out of respect for the victims of the attack and their loved ones."

It's kind of a bizarre reaction, since the story is about how Tsarnaev "fell into radical Islam and became a monster."

So we gotta ask ...

149 COMMENTS

No Avatar
46.

MXEditor    

Get it right TMZ. You are showing the average intelligence of your "reporters" - Have any of them gone to college?

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Retailers have every right to pick and choose what the display and sell.

434 days ago
47.

ghost    

Sickening. Hate the cover. He is not a rockstar. He is a terrorist. Poor choice, Rolling Stone. I would rather see Justin Beiber on the cover, and that is pretty bad if I am saying that.

434 days ago
48.

Geeky Mommy    

The First Amendment means that Rolling Stone has a right to say and publish the piece. It does not anywhere mean that ANYONE has to sell the magazine or buy the magazine.

You can say whatever you want. But the rest of the world does not have to agree with you.

434 days ago
49.

Swins    

This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment at all.
The 1st is about government limiting speech this is about a company choosing not to sell a product. It is a commercial decision.

434 days ago
50.

Spottedfeather    

I don't really care one way or the other. Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant for 25 years....at least...

434 days ago
51.

codymurry1    

You are all little butthurt little girls. It's not like rolling stones said he was a good person or innocent. They are saying he's a piece of sh-t. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT EVERYTHING!

434 days ago
52.

Her Imperial and Royal Majesty    

The intolerance which seems to have motivated this terrorist is the same as the intolerance shown by CVS, which is the same as the intolerance shown by not a few commentators on this blog. Unless we learn to tolerate other points of view from our own, we will eventually blow our world apart.

434 days ago
53.

Sunny    

Good on you, CVS!! I hope other stores and newsstands follow suit! People who do this crap do not need fame. Now, before certain people jump on that, I do understand that this guy has yet to stand trial, and is claiming innocence...but still! He is a suspect, and the evidence points directly to him and his brother. They do not need to be made famous for this! Also, look at the cover...they try to present him as this innocent looking boy! There is nothing innocent about terrorism!

434 days ago
54.

roadking258    

Did they boycott all the other magazines that plastered pics of he & his brother on their covers right after "The Bombing" went down? DOUBT IT!!

434 days ago
55.

tenley    

Last I checked CVS is not the government -- and the First Amendment is only about protecting citizens from infringement of their speech by the government. No private company has any obligation to publish any of your speech (see all the people who never get book deals, or their screenplays turned into movies, for example).

434 days ago
56.

BB not bb    

He looks like JIm Morrison in that picture. Rolling Stones has a dubious take on a lot of stories. They reported that Bin Laden was alive according to his son, when he was probably already dead. They are a liberal spin magazine, so I think they are more about brain washing than news reporting.


I think it is just a publicity stunt for CVS. I don't think people are going to see the cover and get upset beyond a passing thought if anything. The kid was only human. You may hate his guts, but seeing his picture shouldn't put you out of commission for the day.

434 days ago
57.

BB not bb    

This poor kid is probably dead also. When he went to court he was speaking with a Russian accent and all his friends said he never spoke with a Russian accent. Then when his family went to see him in court, they said it didn't even look like it was him.


They are either scared to tell anyone, or no one will report it for them. I am pretty sure they shot Dzhokhar dead that night. Now they just have some actor to show up in court and call the mother.


Maybe the parents are afraid the news would spark a war. I think they really are peaceful people, and I think it is disgusting what the CIA and US government did to exploit this family.


If anyone really died at that marathon, it was due to the snipers on the roofs. The wounded people were crisis actors. This is just another manufactured crisis like the hunt for Osama Bin Laden that was used as an excuse to blow off the soldiers legs in the first place.


I have nothing against these people really. I don't like jihad but they were American citizens and I think they were innocent.

434 days ago
58.

Nobrows    

Ridiculous making this animal look like a rock star on their magazine cover. Does anyone at Rolling Stone have half a brain?

434 days ago
59.

darcy    

I'm all for free speech-I have a journalism degree. But this makes me sick. At first glance you'd think he was a rock star or the newest movie star. If Rolling Stone wants to do a cover on the Boston bombing-there are a lot of other photos to use. Even a photo of the chaos would be more appropriate. This seems like they are glorifying him!!!!!

434 days ago
60.

Lionnnnnesssss    

The story should have taken up 1/4 of a back page NOT A WHOLE COVER! Really Rolling Stone.. Way to GLORIFY this pathetic piece of a person. APPALLING!

434 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web