Second Printer Refuses Legacy

The (Louisiana State University) magazine hit another snag Thursday when Mele Printing (Covington, LA) also declined to publish Legacy for the same reason—a sexual article titled “Kink” that the company claimed conflicted with its Christian values. “Mele Printing reserves the right not to print material that glorifies pornography, abortion or sexual behavior that is in opposition of our morals,” an official from the company wrote in an e-mail to Bob Ritter, director of Student Media.

Marie Frank, the University’s chief procurement officer, said the Office of Procurement Services is obtaining a quote from Ricoh to print Legacy.

Related Content
  • Dave

    A fine example of not only freedom of the press, but freedom of the press owners. Agree or disagree, a moral stand is something to be admired.

  • Jack

    Very admirable on the part of Mele ownership, especially given the economic climate all us printers find ourselves in – kudo’s to Mele!

  • Mike

    A recent editorial from the Daily Reveille expressed the opinion that 2 printers infringed on Constitutional rights (right to freedom of speech) of LSU students by refusing to print a student magazine which contained sexual content. The author’s accusation also included motive in an attempt to maximize the author’s influence and minimize the printing company’s principles – Christian values. How illogical can an inteligent person be? The day that a privately owned business cannot make the choice to refuse to do work that is in conflict with the principles, morals and ethics defining that business is the day that our constitutional rights are in real danger – we can say it but cannot mean it if there is opposition or if it involves Christian values. Does the author of this editorial believe for a second that his readers think the Reveille prints all submitted articles, opinions, cartoons, etc. with no regard or preference to content? You can bet your last dollar the Reveille chooses to publish and refuses to publish according standards that define the Reveille. If I understand the editorial, the author believes a publishing company can refuse, soley on the basis of content, to publish an article but a privately owned printing company cannot refuse, because of Christain values that define the company, to print a job without infringing on the customer’s right to free speech. This editorial goes way beyond "the Pot calling the Kettle black" and dives head first into double standards and religous discrimination.