Sports Illustrated Not at Libraries

Sports Illustrated's decision to not send libraries and schools an issue with Beyonce on the cover ended up infuriating some people. What was at issue was the magazine's claim that it has received complaints in the past from some parents, teachers and librarians over the appropriateness of the magazine's pictures, which some deem risqué.

The Feb. 14 issue, was not shipped to libraries and schools as a result of these complaints. However, some librarians and others believe the magazine's publisher's decision sets a chilling precedent that borders along the lines of censorship.

In effect, these people are saying that only libraries and schools should have the right to decide what content should be pulled or withheld from shelves.

While this article is not in favor of censorship on any level, look at it from the publisher's point of view. In today's world, nothing can ever satisfy everyone. There is always going to be a select group of individuals (who may even be in the majority) who are not satisfied with a product or a publication's content or what some public figure may have told reporters. That's just the way it is.

Companies can't please everyone. So, imagine if you were one of the executives of Time Warner Inc. (which publishes Sports Illustrated). You hear all these parents or school employees complaining about the inappropriateness of the magazine. Rather than continue hearing complaints and potential threats to sue or continue receiving negative publicity over the matter, you make a decision and now, the other side to this issue is upset.

This goes back to the fact that companies can't please everyone and the sad part of this story is that the magazine was pressured enough by critics to, in a way, censor itself.

People can talk all they want about freedom of speech. However, when it comes down to the things we disagree with, we are not as open-minded as we think. This Sports Illustrated incident is a good example of what happens when critics end up dictating the content. Companies have to restrain themselves out of fear of either negative publicity or possible lawsuits.

While the decision to not ship the magazines to libraries and school libraries, was not a great decision, if you look at it from the company's perspective, it may have been the only option.

Librarians and other critics of the decision are charging the magazine with censorship and deciding what content people should be reading. However, looking at it from the Sports Illustrated perspective, it was really critics of the magazine's content who ended up forcing the censorship.

Who is to say that the courts would have protected the magazine's right to continue sending these magazines to public libraries and schools if an angry parent or teacher or principal ended up suing the magazine for sending over "inappropriate" material? Would the librarians currently complaining have supported the magazine if the above incident occurred?