Printer Rejects LSU Student Magazine’s Latest Issue Due to Article on Sexual Fetishes

A printer has refused to publish the latest issue of Legacy Magazine at Louisiana State University because of its concerns about a story on student sexual fetishes.  As The Daily Reveille reports, the article, titled “Kink,” “profiled university students who were involved with a sexual recreation community in order to share their common sexual fantasies. [Legacy‘s editor] said the story contained neither explicit writing nor overly graphic images.”

Yet, it still apparently ran afoul of the previously unspoken “Christian moral values” of Interstate Printing & Graphics, an Alabama-based printing company that has been under contract to publish Legacy since last fall.  The LSU student magazine is put out four times per academic year.  Staff are now searching for a new printer, in hopes the current issue can still appear on time late this month.

In response, on its Facebook page, Legacy posted the following statement: “We want everyone to know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the story or our decision to put it in the magazine. Kink was written in an unbiased, thoughtful and reasonable manner. It was not overly graphic or sensationalized. The photos that accompany the story are illustrative, well-shot pieces. We as a staff found the subject matter interesting because though it may be a taboo subject, normal, everyday LSU students are involved and we as a Legacy staff present all facets of the LSU student body. We stand by this story and our decision to include it in the magazine. Interstate’s refusal to print is not going to have any impact upon what we choose for the content of our publication.”

6 Responses to “Printer Rejects LSU Student Magazine’s Latest Issue Due to Article on Sexual Fetishes”
  1. Steve says:

    Regardless of the obviously polarizing viewpoints on this subject, if the printer doesn’t want to print it based on their moral convictions (in this case, they do not agree with the immoral behavior of the students) then they have that choice. Tolerance is a two way street.

    • Dan says:

      Steve- It’s a very fair point. The larger one, which I think cuts to the heart of people’s concern with the company’s decision: When you enter into a contract with a press outlet, you should be fully upfront about any values that might prohibit you from publishing specific types of content. According to the magazine’s editor, a company rep all of a sudden referred to a Christian morality that prior to the current issue had never been cited. If you want to operate as righteous, so be it. But then don’t enter into a contract without being truthful about it and without understanding what might be coming your way. All my best.

      • Steve says:

        I agree, the printer’s contract should specifically state that it reserves the right not to print anything that may conflict with it’s own standards, moral or otherwise. If it does not, then legally they may be bound to print it anyway.

  2. A. Mitchell says:

    Haven’t viewed the content on the offending article, but has anyone who is condemning the printer considered that they also have an obligation to their employees regarding what they are exposed to? Our firm was approached by an individual that wanted us to print something that was offensive to the women in our office that would have to handle the product. We refused that job out of respect for them.

    • Dan says:

      Similar to Steve’s earlier comment, I think this is a very fair point. Again though, the problem seems to be how the company explained its decision. According to the student magazine editor, the printer rolled out a Christian morality connection that had not been cited upfront. If the magazine article was truly a one-in-a-million out-of-the-blue feature that its employees simply found offensive to the point of backing away from its contract, say that. Instead though, what’s causing this company to lose the PR battle in my humble opinion: It trotted out a larger Christian undertone to the entire company’s operation. If it operates with some sort of Christian ethos, doesn’t it have the obligation to tell its clients that upfront to avoid potential problems like this one?

Check out what others are saying...