levinson at BU.EDU
Fri Feb 21 08:22:39 PST 1997
It is not clear to me, given Rosenberger (ironically enough), why a
university bookstore that would, let us stipulate, be required to carry
Christianity Today (though maybe someone wants to challenge the stipulation
and argue that the bookstore could indeed refuse to carry it on the ground
that it promotes irrationality), could engage in blatant viewpoint
censorship by refusing to carry an otherwise legal "girlie" magazine.
Things get even more complicated when one realizes that Playboy probably
presents more extensive interviews with genuine public figures about matters
of public concern (at least on occasion) than does any other magazine.
At 05:34 PM 2/20/97 MST, you wrote:
>I am curious about Sandy Levinson's theory about the PXs. Does it
>matter whether they are "subsidizing" the magazines? By the way, the
>fact that they "discount" the magazines does not mean that they
>"subsidize" the magazines. They may get (and pass along) price breaks
>from vendors, they may have lower overhead, they may forego profits,
>and they may exploit sales tax immunity at the expense of the states
>but not of the military. Do these details matter?
>As to Marie Failinger's question about the connection to the
>military's mission: why is it not sufficient that the magazines are
>immoral? Most universities do not carry girlie magazines in their
>bookstores; I presume that is because they are morally repugnant.
>While the government cannot punish private citizens for selling,
>buying, or reading morally repugnant stuff, does the First Amendment
>require it to be the purveyor?
>-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
B.U. Law School
EMail: levinson at bu.edu
More information about the Religionlaw