Three Printers Refuse LGBT Student Publication, Citing F-Word, Images of Cross-Dressing

[Newsjock]

Source: Campus Progress

Three printing companies have refused to publish the spring edition of Fusion, a Campus Progress-sponsored LGBT magazine at Kent State University, citing concerns over its images and language.

The controversy has cost Fusion, Campus Progress’ 2010 awardee for Best Overall Publication, more than $2,000, its editor says, as well as substantial effort as students try to release the issue before the school year ends next week.

... The controversial magazine issue includes an eight-page spread featuring cross-dressing models, with the headline “Gender Fuck” written in large print above. Because the issue has not yet been released, Fusion requested that Campus Progress withhold posting the controversial content.

The three Ohio-based printing companies that rejected Fusion in its final form—Freeport Press Inc. in Freeport, Hess Print Solutions in Brimfield, and Davis Graphic Communication Solutions in Bamberton—cited similar reasons for refusing to publish the magazine.

Read more: http://campusprogress.org/articles/three_printers_refuse_lgbt_student_publication_citing_f-word_and_image/

[virgogal]

1. Well they have a printer now so it all worked out.

[nykym]

2. I have had small printing companies

in NYC decline to print invitations with a female nude photo, not showing any offending body pats refuse to print. It is against our policies I was told. This was back in the mid 70's. So yes it is frustrating but not uncommon

[BlueIris]

3. Unbelievable.

Sometimes I feel like I'm literally in the wrong decade now.

[SoapBox]

4. Kind of a form of censorship...

...but they were looking for companies in Ohio...that says a lot right there.

[madrchsod]

5. freedom of the press applies to those who own them...

[iamtechus]

6. What if one if those printers tries to declare bankruptcy?

I don't know why I never thought about this before. Should a company's refusing of legal work be considered in whether or not to allow it to declare bankruptcy wherein creditors and employees are screwed? Seems only fair to me.

Of course it doesn't apply in this particular case. Just hypothesizing.