Censorship and Walmart
 

Is Walmart a barometer of what Americans find socially acceptable?

Or, Is Walmart the designated unofficial censor and enforcer of morals in the US?

Walmart, because of its immense buying (bargaining?) power and its huge customer base is able to to things on a daily basis that would make most people in the US revolt if it were an action taken by government. Walmart can and does dictate what you read, listen to, and use for entertainment. Not only do they control what you have access to but to a point, control the destiny of writers, entertainers, video and movie makers, and video game manufacturers.

Nothing can be done about the control Walmart has over us other than choosing someplace else to purchase these products. The only problem with this logic is, will these products still be available when they are locked out of where most of America does most of its shopping?

I have been boycotting Wal Mart for the better part of a year now. I don't care how much cheaper I can get things there, I won't support their land grab tactics, destruction of local economies, treatment of employees and the way they censor things. They can kiss my ass.
I have turned my fiancee, she won't shop there anymore. I got my best friend and his wife, my brother. I will keep on trying to get people to turn away from that store as much as I can.

Like I said in another thread:

If Wal-Mart wants to ban Maxim, Stuff, and FHM, fine. I understand that some people don't like half-naked women thrust in their face. However, I happen to not like rackfulls of books about God and how to read my Bible the right way thrust in my face, but I think I have a snowball's chance in hell of getting that crap removed from right in front of the registers where they can't be avoided. I also think banning magazines that feature women in lingerie is a bit hypocritical for a store that markets lingerie to pre-teens.

If Wal-Mart ever wants to earn my respect for having "morals" and the courage of their convictions, they'll do what Chick-Fil-A does and close on Sundays.

-Mikey

Wallmart doesn't get successful by not giving people what they want.

I can still find all the porn, sex toys, lingerie, and violent video games I want. I can shop anywhere, including the net for these.

I'm far more worried that California basically decides what school text books the nation uses, then wallmart not having Cosmo because it always has '1000 ways to play with your mans member and drive him wild' on the cover.

Actually, I heard a story on NPR a few months ago stating that it was California and Texas that basically set the school text book agenda. I see those two states as basically balancing each other out. :)

Both wal-mart and the school textbook issues are interesting in that the invidual shoppers and the other 48 states don't *have* to do what everyone else is doing.

In the case of consumers, it appears that most people don't care that the mom and pop stores are getting wiped out, and all the other evil that wal-mart does. In the case of textbooks, it's surprising to me that the boards of education in the other states care so little about textbook content that they just go along with california and/or texas.

I've got mixed feelings about the whole thing. I'm not sure at what level you have to protect the local economy. In europe, for example, there are rather strict laws in germany protecting the franchises of local shopkeepers. I'd love to see more neighborhood and less strip malls, but I think that's something that has to be a grass-roots effort at the local level.

An interesting side note, you will have to take my word on since I can't recall the magazine it came from. I was reading a article about computer repair fraud and which of the 'big' companies was the worst. They removed the CD audio cable from the CD drive and did some other very minor thing to the computer they sent to have fixed, and then looked at what the computer store recommended. They had the 'best buys' and the like but no ma and pa stores. Some readers said they should do the small stores as well since everyone assumed they would be better. They re-did the study and it turned out that the Ma and Pa's were more likely to overcharge, and basicly flat out lie, then the big companies.

I'm all for the small business man BUT limiting the big corporations is worse in my mind then the loss of some of these businesses. When I was in a small town for a while I thanked GOD for a Wal-Mart, because I could get products that would have been unavailable without one. I don't like having to drive '3 towns over yonder' because they happen to have a store that has the desk lamp I need.

When I was in a small town for a while I thanked GOD for a Wal-Mart, because I could get products that would have been unavailable without one. I don't like having to drive '3 towns over yonder' because they happen to have a store that has the desk lamp I need."

I'd almost bet you a ton of money they were available before Walmart arrived!

i will not buy any media products from Wal-mart because they sell altered material without ID'ing it as being altered. I wrote a paper on this a few years back and could not believe what I found out.

Some artists will not bow and they are not sold in Wal-mart. Others only release clean albums because they feel people in areas that only have access to a Wal-mart would not be able to hear/view/read their work if they don't provide an altered version.

I refuse to even go to Wal-mart unless my wife drags me there. She likes the baby section in Wal-mart and I have to admit it has saved us soem money. But I will not do any other type of shopping there.

While, I think it is respectable that WalMart tries to keep its products "clean" (not across the board though, it seems). However, they should put some sort of a ratings sticker or something on censored versions of their CDs. WalMart was also the most likely department store to check IDs on "Mature"-rated games. More power to them for attempting to clean up its products without government intervention.

It may be censorship. But then so be it. The point is, "it's free enterprise". As a privately owned business, Wal-Mart has the right to sell (or not sell) whatever it pleases.

I agree completely, if you don't like it, don't buy from them. Alot of people complain about how the mom-and-pop stores are dissapearing, but then they turn around and shop at Wal-Mart. A company that big doesn't becomes so successful without a reason; tons of people chose Wal-Mart instead because they liked it more than mom-and-pop stores. I don't agree with censorship but if I have a company I'll manage my affairs however I see fit.

Do you still have that paper? I would be interested in reading it.

I have no problem with Wal-Mart.

They are within their legal right to market what they want. If they ever do anything that breaks a law, they'll be be in legal trouble and the legal system will sort it out.

Actually Wal-Mart is a public company, but anyway.....These are valid points, but you also have to consider whether the actions and effects that Wal-Mart has on our society are harmful or beneficial. If Wal-Mart is more harmful than good, then the fact that it is successful or that it has the right to do whatever it has done is irrelevant, and action should be taken to ensure that no further harm is done. I am being purposfully vague because beyond this I have little to add.

You can call Wal-Mart on censorship all you want but I think they are just playing to their target demographics. It is business economics 101.

Heh, your comment was rather psychic, Art. Maybe you missed their big bust for illegal immigrant workers over the weekend. :)

I do know about that. When they deserve trouble - they get it...

I will say something about this now - it may end up as another thread or three eventually. And I suppose many will be dismayed at my opinion on this:

As regards:
"...but you also have to consider whether the actions and effects that Wal-Mart has on our society are harmful or beneficial."

I would simply say, in my opinion, the things they censor are what is harmful to our society.

Wal-Mart should be allowed to sell whatever they want and you should be allowed to buy whatever you want. Personally, I have no problem with shopping at Wal-Mart because the things that they have are generally cheaper and that is vitally important to poor college students. If there is a cd or movie that I want that Wal-Mart refuses to carry in its original form, then I simply don't buy that cd or movie at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is successful because it provides a service better and/or cheaper than other stores. If you sell popular products that are generally the same then the person who can do it the cheapest wins. If they censor material all it does is create a new demand for the censored material that is filled by small time record and clothing stores. If the demand is high enough someone will fill it. Wal-mart has the right to sell or not sell anything it wants as much as I have the right to buy it somewhere else.

If an album by the Butthole Surfers is the most harmful thing in American society, then the world is a much safer place than I ever imagined. :) :)

Those of you that have pointed out Wal Mart's legal rights to sell whatever they please are completely correct. As a public corporation Wal Mart has that right, just as the neo-nazis have the right to preach their hateful views. Both groups are exercising their constitutionally granted rights, but that doesn't mean society is benifiting from it. L.D.'s original point that Wal Mart is censoring the public is very valid. Becuase it is such a huge venue artists (especially) are forced to cater their albums toward Wal Mart's standards or risk not being sold in the store that more than half the US population shops at.

Whle I dont like Walmarts censorship, they are allowed to do so. And, I stand by your stances of boycotting Walmart. This is all part of a free market in action. Its all American, baby.

I love going to Wal-Mart at 3am, down here we call it Club Wal-Mart.

Stop right there. Wal-mart accounts for 10% of all music sales. So, if an artist wants to compromise their artistic integrity for a 10% boost in sales, then they really didn't have a lot of integrity to start with.

The idea of an artist being "forced" to compromise with wal-mart in order to sell their artistic product is just silly. If they care that much about compromising themselves, they can put mp3's up for free or sell the CD's themselves.

I do believe in anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, and I think, for example, microsoft definitely falls into the level of control where they need some oversight. Wal-mart, though, seems to have plenty of quality competitors like Target, Costco, and others.