This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Freedom of Speech?

I think that we can all agree that the cover for the upcoming Rolling Stone magazine is all at once shocking and controversial. The image of Dzhokar Tsarnaev's almost teen-idol worthy good looks, fashionable attire, and scruffy, long haired, pot-head image are not unlike others that have graced the cover of this magazine over the past 47 years. A teenage girl in California, unfamiliar with the details of what happened in Boston may have to look twice before realizing that they are looking at the face of a terrorist and not some hot, young actor or up-and-coming singer. 

Social media and the internet in general are in an uproar. People are demanding that the magazine be pulled from circulation and threatening to boycott. I'm starting to see petitions to be signed and letters to the editor being shared. So, what is my humble opinion about all of this? Well, I am frustrated with Rolling Stone. But probably not for the reasons you might think.

We pay for and receive Rolling Stone Magazine and have for the past 3 or 4 years. I have not always read it, nor do I always agree with their extreme left wing politics. But I enjoy the articles about celebrities I am interested in, I like staying up to date on music industry happenings, and sometimes I read stories about current events that I have not seen in any other form of media (even if they often have an extremely liberal swing to them). I think that the journalists can be biased, but they do a great job within the confines of the magazine they are writing for. And, let's face it. Whether you agree with their politics or not, they have a lot more freedom than most magazines to say what they want in the way they want to say it.

Find out what's happening in Wilmingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Ever since April 15, 2013, I have been waiting to see how Rolling Stone would cover the Boston Marathon bombings. This is a main stream magazine that is so in the public's eye that surely they would scramble to cook up some amazing cover story. Perhaps we would see a marathon related cover, a memorial to the victims, touching interviews with the survivors. So many media outlets used the time immediately following the attack to run stories and pictures that invoked sympathy, compassion, hope, and strength from people all over the state, the country, and the world. Surely a magazine a big as Rolling Stone would do something epic. Something amazing. Something that went above and beyond.

I have waited and waited. Never did I see any of those things on a cover. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the bombings have not even been mentioned on the cover at all. No sidebar preview of some article or blurb inside. No pictures. No mention of it at all. The very first thing that Rolling Stone Magazine decides to make their headline pertaining to the bombings, is a cover story about the surviving attacker. Here's the thing: It doesn't really matter what the article is about. It doesn't matter if it is a demonizing story about a monster that reassures us of what evil came from him (as if we needed reassuring). What matters is that he was front page news before any other part or person involved in this tragedy was.

Find out what's happening in Wilmingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

I, for one, believe that we should remain educated about things like this. To be completely honest, I will probably read the article about this boy. I will not be cancelling my subscription or demanding that it be pulled from circulation. I have been legitimately interested in this story. In how it is that a seemingly well-liked individual who spent most of his formitive years in this country and had no ties to any major terrorist or religious radical groups could turn into such a hateful, vengeful soul. How does a likeable, pot-head, college student commit such heinous crimes against humanity? And what on earth is going on with his crazy parents and extended family? In short, I believe that educating ourselves about these types of individuals can not only help us to try and prevent something like this from happening in the future, but can also help us cope. To just blindly hate can be dangerous. And unhealthy. I am not claiming that there can be any justification for his evil acts, so please do not misunderstand me. I am simply saying that forgetting that he is human is also a mistake. To focus all of our energies on what he did and ignore the reasons why could lead to more incidents like this one. 

And regardless of remembering that he is human and there was inevitably a reason why he did what he did, we should all strive to be as educated as possible on the things that happen in our world. And not just educated about the people that are "on our side", so to speak, but the entirety of a situation from every angle. You cannot justly form an opinion or pass judgement on anything that you do not fully understand. And fully understanding sometimes means learning about the terrifying, ugly underbelly of society. Tsarnaev is an example of this underbelly. 

Rolling Stone is completely within their right to write this story. And they are completely within their right to make it the cover. In case you have forgotten, we have this thing in our country called "Freedom of Speech." We do not have to agree with anything that a person, group, media outlet preaches but we need to respect their right to do so. Just as the crazy radical can stand on the corner with a sign  comparing Obama to Hitler, you can stand on that same corner speaking the opposite. Freedom of speech is one of the wonderful things about living in the country. So is the fact that we are allowed to formulate our own opinions based on whatever information we choose to pay attention to. Rolling Stone exercised their freedom of speech by running this story in the way that they did. Guess what? All of those that are in an uproar, slamming the publication and calling for justice? They are exercising their freedom of speech as well. And, in my opinion, both sides of the argument are right. Rolling Stone wanted to be controversial. They wanted to invoke emotion and stir the pot. And they clearly succeeded. They got exactly what they wanted. They ran a cover story that was edgy and there's no way that they didn't know exactly what they were doing. These people are not stupid. They do not operate a high profile magazine and survive in the age of social media without having intuition and intelligence.

As alluded to earlier, the reason I am frustrated is because this is the story that Rolling Stone decided to be their first major coverage of such a horrible tragedy. I believe that it was in poor taste. I believe that was disrespectful. If I had seen this cover after a cover that focused on the other side of the story - the victims, the city, the law enforcement, the survivors - I would not be so upset. Because showing your respect for that side of the story first is not only in good taste, it just makes sense. We can all hope that Rolling Stone will take this into consideration and be a little more careful and thoughtful with their choices. But they probably won't. Because they don't have to. Because their bottom line is not going to be hurt. For as many people that will boycott, there will be those that subscribe or purchase the edition to actually see what all the fuss is about. And a lot of those threatening boycott probably won't even follow through.

So, Rolling Stone, I applaud you on your success. But, I think you displayed poor taste and I feel a little disrespected as someone who lives in Massachusetts and knows people that were directly affected (in whatever minor ways) by this tragedy. I wish you would apologize for your method of approach. But, then again, maybe I don't.


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?