Printer refuses humor magazine because "Christian owners" want to protect "the kids"


Originally published at:


If the owner thinks this magazine is dangerous, wait until he finds out that they’re also printing material that promotes belief in the supernatural and justifies genocide on the basis that some people are Chosen and others not so much.


Cue lawsuit .


Random thoughts:

The magazine guy handled it correctly. Just go somewhere else.

I wish he had named the printing company. People have a right to know.

To quote President John Adams, “Damn it, we’re at war. We’re going to have to offend SOMEBODY!!”


If they carry on reading, they will get to the bit where some bleeding heart guy goes around telling people to be socialists.

As for The American Bystander, maybe they should make a comic book version of Song of Songs. It’s Biblical, what more could the printers want? It would be ideal for the kids they worry about.


No such luck. While the government can’t censor The American Bystander any printer can refuse to print their content for any reason they wish to name, if any. The periodical or the parent company for The American Bystander isn’t having any civil rights violated.

It could be a breach of contract issue if they had one with the printer, possibly.

Public shame and finding a better printer are pretty much their only recourse.


I’m willing to bet those kids in his shop have seen a little art film called “2 girls 1 cup” , so the ship has sailed on “protecting the kids”, bucko.


That was my thinking.


I’ve spent my career in and around the printing industry.

This is completely unsurprising. What will be just as unsurprising is when this printing company fails. Most of them will fail in the next decade because of changes in the industry and the world, but especially the ones who turn away work.

(Edit because of cat-initiated typing).


“Freedom of the press,” has always meant freedom for those who own presses to print (or not print) what they want.


*consults Interwebs*

I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh’s chariots.





There’s other fantastic printers that would love to take their business, it’s their loss for being idiots.


So they should seek “separate, but equal facilities” for the work to be done. Hmm, where has that phrase come up before?


Srsly. They should be glad there are still people who want to actually print magazines. Business strategy for surviving declining market: turn away paying clients because they make you vaguely uncomfortable. Or even, because the manager just assumes the owner would be vaguely uncomfortable.


This is actually pretty common in the printing industry. We have a bindery firm we work with who won’t handle anything with sex or violence.


Bad headline:
Nobody was dropped, this was a respone to inquity on a new contract. The mag had never printed at the facility that was quoted.


At least it wasn’t a cake.


I think this is a much more minor thing on inspection.

*They are easily w/in their rights to not print it
*The guy was apologetic
*He didn’t say they shouldn’t or can’t print it
*There are, surely, many, many other options for the creators to work with.


It’s not the same thing at all.