Comments on: Walmart’s Nazi Ad

By: Flexo

Flexo — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:45:05 +0000

I see your point. Putting aside the numerous news stories that have used the word “ban” in connection with Walmart’s policies, my point is that Walmart’s use of censorship imagery and Nazi imagery is more similar to that company’s policy of not selling or removing books [Jon Stweart's America (The Book) for instance] and music [a Sheryl Crow album for instance] it feels are inappropriate than the book-burning idea is to the government’s policy of zoning.

In addition to the “irony,” if they are truly worried about offending customers through the items they sell, why do they have no qualms about offending people through Nazi imagery in their commercial advertisements?

By: Jerry Kindall

Jerry Kindall — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:49:58 +0000

It’s a very unconventional use of the word — like saying if I don’t decide to buy a given book, I have banned it from my house. There are lots of books Wal-Mart doesn’t buy for one reason or another; none of these are “banned.” It makes no sense to speak of banning yourself from doing something; a ban by nature must come from elsewhere.

The phrase “banned in Boston” sure didn’t mean that some theater had merely not decided to put on a particular play!

By: Flexo

Flexo — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:11:54 +0000

I’m not sure how the decision not to carry an item is not effictively banning. I’m not saying Walmart is banning an item throughout society at large, it’s banning an item for sale store- or corporation-wide, through a policy delivered from headquarters. This is an accurate and common use of the word “ban.”

By: Jerry Kindall

Jerry Kindall — Sat, 11 Jun 2005 06:02:05 +0000

The statement “Wal-Mart regularly bans books and music” is plain false. Wal-Mart can’t ban anything; it can only decide not to carry it in its stores.

By: savvy saver

savvy saver — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:07:44 +0000

“Should we let government tell us what we can read? Of course not,” the ad said. “So why should we allow local government to limit where we shop?”

The government isn’t telling people they can’t shop at WalMart, they are saying WalMart needs to find another location, or not expand. If my neighbor’s house burns down and he decides to build a grocery store there, I sure as heck hopes the local gov’t steps in and tells him to take it elsewhere. If the government doesn’t think their community can support or sustain a WalMart, for whatever reason, then they should have every right to outlaw them. Afterall, communities regulate the locations of many other types of establishements.

By: Flexo

Flexo — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:25:39 +0000

Walmart is within their rights to self-censor, but creating an advertisement with Nazi imagery belies the government’s intent and offends many people, regardless of whether the government should step in to protect small businesses. It’s a stretch to call the proposition or referendum censorship in the first place.

Perhaps I can believe that the one person in charge of the ad didn’t realize that book burning was Nazi imagery, and surely book burning existed before Nazism, but one would think that advertisements need some sort of committee approval before going to press and someone must have known.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 18:11:21 +0000

While I do appreciate the irony of the situation, I don’t see it as hypocritical. The rights of individuals (and in this case corporations) doesn’t change the role of government. I’m actually in agreement with Walmart on this, I don’t think the govt should be allowed to make walmart specific laws especially when walmart is doing nothing wrong.

What the govt does is law. What walmart does is not law. We as consumers can always go down the street to buy the dvds and books we want. If the govt censors, it censors everything!