Posted on 04/17/2004 11:08:57 AM PDT by E Rocc
Nipple-Free Zone A man's bare chest is too racy for Walgreens. BY AINA HUNTER
When Calvin Johnson photographed merrymakers at a Fourth of July party hosted by gay activist-businessman-philanthropist Gregg Ammell and his partner, David Laws, Johnson had no idea it would be the last of the couple's fabulous parties.
Weeks later, Ammell suffered a fatal heart attack, leaving his old friends with nothing but good memories.
After the funeral, Johnson picked up the film he'd dropped off at a Lakewood Walgreens. Ammell's large back yard was full of sun that sweltering afternoon. In the midst of the party, he stepped onto the veranda to make a toast, wearing nothing but shorts and a nipple piercing. He seemed healthy and happy -- Johnson wanted to remember him that way. Thankfully, he had photographed the moment.
But when he retrieved his pictures, the photo wasn't there. Nor were any of his negatives, he says.
Johnson, 69, knew the picture had turned out, since the rest of the roll looked fine. But he was too consumed with grief to dwell on the mystery, so he put it out of his mind.
Six months later, he was talking with friends about the Super Bowl and Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." He wondered aloud why everyone was so offended by what was, in the end, just a nipple. Then it occurred to him: Someone at Walgreens may have been offended by Ammell's pierced chest.
When he returned to store, Doug Griffin, assistant manager of the Detroit Avenue Walgreens, told him about a "law" that says film developers are under no obligation to print photos they deem offensive. "If someone does not approve of the subject matter," Griffin later scribbled in a note to Johnson, "each employee has the right as they see fit."
In fact, no such law exists, but this would be an accurate summary of Walgreens' corporate policy.
Thanks to pressure from conservative groups like the American Family Association, Walgreens has flip-flopped on its photo policy for the past two years. According to AFA chief counsel Stephen Crampton, Walgreens used to develop all film dropped off at its in-store labs. Nudity and sex between consulting adults were considered free expression.
The liberal attitude annoyed the AFA, so the group ventured to Deerfield, Illinois, in February 2003 to meet with Walgreens executives on behalf of an employee who supposedly had been fired for refusing to develop pictures of naked people. Walgreens told them they were mistaken. The employee was laid off because the store had simply overhired; it would not be changing its photo policy.
AFA chairman Don Wildmon responded with a letter and telephone campaign against Walgreens. The company was also attacked in an anonymous article titled "Walgreens Offers One-Hour Porn Photo Developing," which was posted on AFAjournal.org -- immodestly billed as "America's largest pro-family action site."
"Walgreens says it will continue the practice of developing pictures depicting nudity and sexual acts, including bestiality, in one-hour photo store labs," the article said. It went on to denounce the company for creating a hostile work environment for people opposed to "pornographic pictures."
Walgreens caved.
Company spokeswoman Carol Hively refuses to discuss AFA's influence on the chain. But Walgreens' policy definitely changed. Deciding what's obscene and what isn't is now left to the person operating the photo-finishing equipment. If a worker is offended by a negative, the photo need not be developed -- meaning something as commonplace as a shirtless man with a piercing could be ruled perverse.
The AFA is still not happy, though. It would rather see Walgreens adopt a policy more akin to Wal-Mart's.
There's no ambiguity at the big-box behemoth. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Dinett Thompson says that instead of submitting a customer's negatives to the subjective judgment of employees, its photo-processing policy is sweeping: no nudity, nowhere, nohow.
Meijer takes a more extreme stance: It actually rats its customers out. Managers at the Michigan-based chain, which has 30 stores in Ohio, are under instructions to call the police if they come across "any photographs containing nudity."
Even a new bride, naked in the garden? Scene asked spokesman John Zimmerman.
"Calling the police," he replies.
A pair of kids in the bathtub, making shampoo horns with their hair?
"No, not that. Well . . ." He pauses. "Well, yes. If any genitalia is visible, then yes, we would have to call the police."
CVS, Eckerds, and Rite-Aid have ambiguous policies that mirror Walgreens' -- decisions are left to employees. Which means that if you're shooting photos at the beach this summer, whether they get printed or not is strictly the luck of the draw.
Johnson doesn't understand how anyone could be offended by his photo of Ammell. He doesn't even care, really. He just knows that he lost a friend, and now his best photograph is only in his head.
1) The so-called "American Family Association" is very much in favor of enforcing censorship, and pressuring private organizations to adopt their standards.
2) To make people aware of the policies of these various drugstores. After all, what if a Muslim employee is asked to develop your vacation beach pictures? Johnson didn't even get the negatives back.
-Eric
Under the copyright law (17 USC) they do not belong to Walgreens and Walgreens is not free to do with them as they like. The photographer needs to talk to a lawyer and fast. He needs to get those negatives back, if only to send a message. If they've been destroyed, he ought to come away with a nice chunk of Walgreens stock.
Don't worry, Mr Johnson, there's plenty of pictures for everyone.
http://www.nice-tits.org/
There is not a thing wrong with private groups/persons censoring the media it handles.There's plenty wrong with busybody organizations inserting themselves into private transactions such as these.
-Eric
A company that wants to keep its customers wisely considers the moral standards of those customers.What do the "moral standards" of customers have to do with private transactions, unless they include busybodyism?
The company is free to perticipate in pornography. It is also free to refuse to do so.This wasn't "pornography" by the definition of any reasonable person.
What is your problem with private citizens banding together to accomplish a societal improvement?Everything, when it involves private transactions and the forced involvement of a third party with no direct role. Eventually, these groups go to government, hoping to get their idea of "improvement" codified into law. The AFA does this already, through it's campaigns for "dry counties" in the south. It is an organization opposed to freedom.
Absolute freedom with no moral restraints is EVIL. We shoudld all thank God that society imposes moral standards on us - and pray that those standards improve from where they are now.Horse-clinton. The only restraints which should be enforced are those which prevent direct and provable harm to unwilling participants. "Society" armed with the power to "impose standards" has a name: government. Donald Wildmon and the AFA are clearly willing to use the power of government as a means to impose their own religious agenda, regardless of the Constitutional prohibition against such activities. They as big a threat to liberty as the Democratic Party.
-Eric
Societies have moral standards with or without government involvement. This thread is about an instance of moral standards being enforced by private actors without government involvement.It is a case of a third party, with no involvement except busybodyism and a history of running to government, placing pressure on a party to an action which is absolutely positively none of their concern. Busybodies can be just as much a threat to liberty as over-officious government.
You are against moral standards within a society. Even when government is not involved. Shame on you. That is unAmerican.What I'm against is the use of pressure tactics, by either government or busybody groups using the implied threat of government, to mind the business of others. You're certainly not one I'd look towards to define "unAmerican" with your clear views against liberty and rather transparent belief that (presumably Christian) religious rules should be enforced in a nation where such Establishment is forbidden by the highest law of the land.
By the way, it's pretty much generally recognized that when you feel the need to say "you lose" to someone in an internet debate, the converse is true.
-Eric
Good point. So I suppose that you have no problem with Muslim fundamentalists banding together to impose sharia law upon your community. After all, they're accomplishing a societal improvement. Absolute freedom, such as that of women to go bare-headed, is EVIL. We should all thank God that society imposes moral standards on us, and pray that those standards improve from this present, disgusting display of disobedience to the Koran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
