where's martin's? Boston bomber on the cover of the Rolling Stones

[Garry Walker]

A notorious guy like let's say Kim Jong Un is hardly perceived like cool.

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

[BDunnell]

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

I'd contest 'most', unless you have any statistical proof, but I would tend to agree with your sentiment. In a free society, you can't go around trying to prevent people you don't like from being in the public eye. Who is to have the final word on whether someone is 'suitable'? It's a slippery slope.

[BDunnell]

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

But based on its actual content?

[Rudy Tamasz]

But based on its actual content?

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

[BDunnell]

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

[BDunnell]

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

[ioan]

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

Talk about common sense in the audience brainwashed by pop culture the Rolling Stone is a part of.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

Speaking of judgments, they have to be made with everybody who your words and actions can reach in mind. It's like driving. You can go 100 mph and have no problem, but there are moments when you would do that and moments when you wouldn't.