Interesting..

@tessah (6617)
United States
January 27, 2011 10:20am CST
when i first clicked the link for this article i initially thought it was going tobe about some patron pitching a fit over the magazine cover itself.. but it turns out they were upset over the stores censurship of it. bravo! who`s side would you be on? ddo you agree with the stores covering up of the cover? or do you think it shouldntve been hidden?
2 people like this
2 responses
radairc
@radairc (98)
• United States
27 Jan 11
I would love to respond, but you did not include a link to said article. :P
1 person likes this
Sparks
@sparkofinsanity (20471)
• Regina, Saskatchewan
27 Jan 11
No it shouldn't have been hidden. Most kids would concentrate on the baby anyway, and to see it held by a man would seem no different to them than seeing their father or uncle or whomever holding a sibling of theirs. The store was wrong and I'm glad the magazine was finally allowed to be shown 'full face'.