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
61.

Mary    

quotes TMZ: "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."

Has anyone at TMZ ever READ the First Amendment? It doesn't prohibit a private business (CVS) from deciding not to sell a product published by another private business (Rolling Stone). The First Amendment applies ONLY to actions by government . Please read and learn about it before making stupid comments..


"

372 days ago
62.

snipes007    

Minutes before the explosion there are navy seals, carrying bags, all around the bombing area. They even walking a drugged out patsy. During press conference, they announce they have someone, these photos leak, by hackers, and the story changes all of sudden and they accuse the brothers.
It must be hard to think for yourselves LOL http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU look and see real evidence you guys are like lemmings so sad. bet you guys won't even look at it *****s

372 days ago
63.

jkuhn76    

Putting this guy on the cover of a magazine only promotes him and will likely make other troubled kids think killing will make them famous. Bad call by Rolling Stone....

372 days ago
64.

zzyzx    

You'd think with a lawyer in charge over there, somebody would explain to the staff that the first amendment has nothing to do with private companies and individuals. It's strictly protects people from GOVERNMENT limiting free speech. Seriously Harvey, can you hold a government 101 class for your staff? You can be the first student.

372 days ago
65.

xSurge    

They aren't glorifying him. They are showing you who he was before he became such a monster. They are journalists. It's their job to not demonize people. Everyone already knows he was a monster

372 days ago
66.

billybob    

Yo, "F.B.I. feat. MC Bomber", ... i guess a wonderful new career just has started...

372 days ago
67.

Gsetter1    

Lord have Mersey, what a stunning glamour shot of this terrorist. I'm surprised rolling stone isn't selling. Posters of him....lol

Where do we draw the line at glorifying those who do such terrible things. The magazine says they're putting him in the magazine because of the demographics of they're readers, all the more reason to NOT show him as a poor misunderstood stud muffin....

372 days ago
68.

BethyW    

So if People magazine put this as thier cover would you be so outraged? The situation is that you look at Rolling Stones and assume entertainment magazine. You would not see Bin Laden on the cover of OK magazine, but he has been on the cover of People and he killed more americans than any other terrorist to date.

372 days ago
69.

I will BUY a thousand copies    

He's INNOCENT! He didn't do it! Google MK Ultra
Bravo Rolling Stone. I will buy a thousand copies!

372 days ago
70.

daved0622    

They do have the right not sell what they choose, kudos CVS

372 days ago
71.

cobro    

'CVS apparently believes the First Amendment has limits...'

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, CVS is not tacitly expressing a belief that the 'First Amendment has limits' through its actions. Had the U.S. government pressured CVS to boycott the magazine, or censored the cover or article content directly then, yes, this would be a constitutional issue.

One can credibly argue, in fact, that CVS is exercising the First Amendment, as both boycotts and buycotts are constitutionally-protected forms of expression.

You should not invoke a First Amendment argument if you do not understand it.

372 days ago
72.

Hedy Putegnat    

Thank-You,CVS!

372 days ago
73.

@drayram    

FKN genius! dude loox like a freaking angel I'd F em' anti democratic would be if they weren't allowed to publish & distribute it. Controversial, definitely but hey remember this kid is an American !

372 days ago
74.

celiebrity    

I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talk about about Rolling Stone magazine, or really any magazine for that matter. At least they are becoming irrelevant with a bang.

372 days ago
75.

TCT1960    

Stop focusing on the terrorist and focus on the victims. There is nothing wrong with the content of the article, but that SOB should not be on the cover. How about the victims!

372 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web