Boston Marathon Bombing

Rolling Stone Cover Featuring Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Prompts Outrage

Has pleaded not guilty to all charges in connection to the Boston Marathon bombing

|

Reason

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect, is on the cover of Rolling Stone's latest issue.

Unsurprisingly, the decision to have Tsarnaev on the cover has sparked outrage online.

Tsarnaev recently pleaded not guilty to all charges related to the Boston Marathon bombing, which killed three and injured over 260.

From the BBC:

A Rolling Stone magazine cover featuring Boston bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has caused outrage online.

Thousands of people posted on social media networks calling it "tasteless" and "disgusting".

Tsarnaev, 19, who pleaded not guilty to all charges in connection to the bombings in April, is profiled in the forthcoming issue.

The image, which Tsarnaev posted online himself, has also featured on the front page of the New York Times.

"What a disgrace, trying to make [Tsarnaev] look like a rock star. Horrible," Steve Simon posted on Rolling Stone's Facebook page, where more than 5,400 people have commented in the 12 hours since the cover was revealed online.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: More Flood Insurance Follies in Congress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks for having to click twice to see the cover in question. And yeah, Rolling Stone is repulsive. They basically made a rock star out of this clown and encouraged other clowns to commit random acts of public violence in hopes of getting the same treatment.

    1. Thx for the hint, John.
      Found the cleverly-hidden artifact.

      1. Would it have been hard to post the pic?

        1. Maybe they don’t want to? Or they’re holding out until the terrorist issue of Tiger Beat?

        2. They don’t want to encourage us. We’re dangerous anti-government extremists after all.

    2. I find this media practice reprehensible. I don’t expect them to completely boycott the use of photos, nor do I think they should do that, but making celebrities out of total scumbags like this is such a bad idea.

      Obviously, I totally support their right to do it, even if I think it wrong.

      1. I don’t necessarily have a problem with using photos it’s the photos they choose to use that bother me.

        1. It’s a selfie, by the way. It’s how he seems himself.

      2. They made the kid look like a young Jim Morrison. The thing to remember is that the real threat such as there is one now is losers like these guys deciding they want to blow something up for the jihad. And what drives them as much as religion is celebrity. These guys are literal rock stars in the radical circles they ran in. For every no shit terrorist, there are hundreds of wannabes and hangers on. People who love to rant and rave but really won’t ever do anything. The more celebrity you give the ones who do, the more of the wannabes are going to decide being famous is worth dying or going to prison for.

        Basically, Rolling Stone is now acting as a terrorist recruiting magazine.

        1. Yeah, John, showing a picture is terrorist recruiting. Do you ever stop to exam the hyperbole you spew sometimes? You’re having kittens over a fucking picture. Think about that.

          1. Your credibility is somewhat weakened here by the fact that you have a life-sized poster of Tsarnaev in your home.

            1. I told you not to talk about that!

            2. FatHead does custom wall posters, think a Tsarnaev one would get by them?

          2. Do you ever stop to think sometimes? If fame and celebrity is what drives people like this to blow shit up, giving them fame and celebrity is recruiting others to do the same.

            Metaphor, analogy, I know those are difficult concepts for you to grasp and much more difficult than just screaming TEAM all of the time, but give it shot. I think you can do it. I have faith you could up your game a bit if you tried. But I am an optimist like that.

            1. Sure, John. I’ll just whistle past the fact that you are behaving exactly like the outrage machines you love to hate when it’s over something just as stupid, but on the other side.

              Your un-self-awareness is amazing sometimes.

              1. Yes Episiarch. Since people often object to shit for dumb reasons, objecting to anything is dumb. Yeah that makes sense. Clearly my bitch in those other cases was against the entire concept of ever thinking something is stupid or in poor taste. it wasn’t that the particular bitch in that particular case was wrong. So certainly that bars me from ever finding anything in poor taste or offensive myself.

                Yeah that is totally it. You not upping your game as much as I had hoped.

                1. You’re outraged over a magazine cover. I don’t think I need to say anything else, because my first sentence shows how utterly ridiculous you are. If you want to keep digging, be my guest, but…I’ll say it again for clarity: you, like some old housewife or feminist or any kind of douchebag, are outraged over a fucking magazine cover. Go ahead, John. Own that. It’s yours, because you seem to want it really badly.

                  1. You’re outraged over a magazine cover

                    So nothing on a magazine cover can ever be in poor taste, encourage people to do stupid things, or be offensive? Ever?

                    It is a fucking idiotic cover that does nothing but tell every other wannabe that the way to fame is to go blow shit up. That makes the people who made it vile. If pointing that out offends your delicate sensibilities, you have a lot more problems than just the need to better understand argument by analogy.

                    1. Holy fucking shit you’re tedious, grandma. Wow, the only thing more boring than watching you predictably get your old lady panties into a bunch over a fucking magazine cover is your full-throated defense of basically being an old lady. Enjoy, John; you’ve earned it.

                    2. That’s not the crux of the issue for me. What bothers is the Left’s “villian-worship” that is the central expression of the nihilistic death cult that is the foundation of their beliefs.

                      The Rolling Stone cover merely represents the Brothers Tsarnaev’s apotheosis to join the pantheon of violent sociopaths: Trotsky, Che, Mao, and now Tsarnaev.

                    3. Well said, HM. I don’t think anyone is calling for censorship or something insane like that. The point is that this is a deeper look into the nature of the Left, and it’s hideous.

                    4. You forgetting Czar Alexander II?

        2. “…a young Jim Morrison.”

          There was no other kind of Jim Morrison. I think this pic is fake: http://www.freakingnews.com/Ol…..-97590.asp

      3. Should Time or Newsweek not have put Saddam, or Hitler on the cover?

        The shit people get OUTRAGED about is ridiculous. We’ve got a government that has pretty much flushed our founding document down the shitter, and the populous is outraged about a magazine cover…

        1. Er…populace.

          1. Did you play that old PC game, Populous. Pretty cool, being a god.

            1. No, just too much reliance on spell checker. No squiggly red line means you can hit submit.

            2. I must admit guilty pleasure at popping a volcano up under the other guys worshipers.

        2. Oh, I have room for outrage about a great many things. I wouldn’t have thought so, but there it is.

          I don’t like the practice when it involves serial killers or terrorists who are at least half in it for the notoriety. Again, it’s just something I don’t like. I’m not calling for a government ban, which would be much, much worse.

        3. Did they put them on the cover in a really flattering portrait that gave them the celebrity they wanted? IF so, then yes, that was bullshit too. But I don’t think they did.

          The shit people get OUTRAGED about is ridiculous. We’ve got a government that has pretty much flushed our founding document down the shitter, and the populous is outraged about a magazine cover…

          So outrages only go to 11? An outrage must be the worst outrage currently happening or it is unworthy of any note? That is a really stupid argument. Just because other things are worse doesn’t disqualify something from being bad.

          1. An outrage must be the worst outrage currently happening or it is unworthy of any note?

            No John, the point is they ARE outraged about this, but AREN’T outraged that the constitution is being used to wipe their congressman’s ass with.

            Different.

    3. At least Tsarnev gets to be a hero while he’s still young and handsome. Old time mad bombers like Bill Ayers had to slum around for decades before they got on magazine covers. And by then the endorsement deals are few and far between.

    4. He’s Hot. He’s Sexy. And he’s not yet dead.

      1. Too bad he’s on a cover for a magazine that stopped being relevent in the 70s.

    5. I wish there were a way to convince celebrities to boycott Rolling Stone. Couldn’t we get them the equivalent publicity via Spin, Tiger Beat, Seventeen, whatever?

      This is truly vile.

    6. Your absolutely correct. Why I remember when, for like 2 years straight, I made sure to drunkenly kill every passenger that ever rode whotgun with me. All because Rolling Stone put Vince neil on the cover.

      1. *shotgun*

  2. Pic or it didn’t happen.

  3. Pretty sure sarcasmic covered this in the AM links.

  4. This is an offense to the entire human race, and SugarFree.

    1. You have the subtlety of a yak.

      1. I thought he just moved like a pregnant one.

        1. A post from SugarFree is like a steampunk colonoscopy.

          I’m going to get on SF’s testimonial list if it’s the last thing I do.

          1. No you’re not, Suki. No you’re not.

          2. You’re trying too hard. Let the disgust flow through you.

          3. It’s got to come from the heart. For instance, I truly believe the editors here have discussed banning him multiple times.

            1. Banning SugarFree would be like kicking a rotting corpse, releasing the stench which is better kept within.

              1. I see you’ve seen the meeting minutes.

              2. “Next time he makes me vomit through my gut laughing with one of those slashfic pieces, he’s getting the banhammer!”

              3. I read that as “licking,” and was actually disturbed.

                1. So I was too subtle? I guess that list is off-limits for me too.

  5. Without reading the article, I notice that some leftists cannot resist the “promising youth lured into terrorism and crime” narrative. Come to think of it, I myself find it hard to resist. “Bent is the branch that might have grown full straight/And broken is Apollo’s laurel bough,” etc.

    1. Oops, the quote is

      Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight,
      And burned is Apollo’s laurel-bough,
      That sometime grew within this learned man.

      http://www.gutenberg.org/files/779/779-h/779-h.htm

      Young Joker wasn’t quite as learned as Dr. Faustus, I grant you that.

      1. Okay, which Faust should I read: Marlowe’s or Goethe’s?

        (I am sorry for being lazy and ignorant but I am working on it.)

        1. Goethe’s Faust Part I, then Marlowe, then Goethe’s Part II if you’re masochistic.

  6. “He’s so dreamy. He can pressure-cook my panties any day.”

    If you haven’t heard, he getting ton of sex offers and marriage proposals. Barf.

    “Oh, Jahar… tell me again about all those innocent people you horrifically maimed to make a political statement no one understands…”

    1. The worse the killer the more women will want them. Richard Ramirez had tons of groupies. Ramirez wasn’t even good looking. He was a skinny, dirty repulsive homeless guy.

      1. Two days later, his mug shots were broadcast on national television and printed on the cover of every major newspaper in California. The next day Ramirez was identified, chased, surrounded, and severely beaten by an angry mob in East Los Angeles as he was trying to steal a car. Police had to break up the mob to prevent them from killing Ramirez.

        Ramirez died of complications secondary to B-cell lymphoma at Marin General Hospital in Greenbrae, California, on June 7, 2013. He was 53 years old. At the time of his death, Ramirez had been on death row for more than 23 years, awaiting execution by the state of California.

        An example of why extra-judicial retributive violence can be a good thing. The mob nearly succeeded whereas the state totally failed.

      2. Ramirez wasn’t homeless. In fact, I know the guy that was his housemate, from back in the day. Yeah, it was a weird conversation.

    2. Seriously, the kind of inhumanity shown by this kid should make him totally disgusting to anyone not actively supporting his fucking random cause. Instead, we’re so fucked up that shit like this happens. It’s not just the people doing such things, it’s also media outlets like Rolling Stone.

    3. Why would any woman be attracted to a killer? Is it left over from our primitive history when rival males would kill the competition and horde all the females?

      1. And the bad boy nonsense. Maternal instinct colliding with immature sexual impulses.

        1. He is so dreamy. He kills people without provacation. I’m sure this will turn out well for me.
          / idiot girl

          1. “He would never hurt me because our love would be pure.”

            1. Dagny, Nikki, carol, bubsab, banjos – do any of you have any insight into this. To all the other (alleged) female libertarians, sorry if I did not call you by name.

              1. Well, the “prison groupie” thing is hardly new. I agree in general with SF above; some women are into bad boys and some of that is maternal instinct. I mean, there is a definite line between The Crystals’ “He’s a Rebel” and “He Hit Me (It Felt Like a Kiss),” but it’s a line some women obviously cross.

                Plus, let’s be real–the kid is super cute. I mean don’t cue up the outrage machine on me for saying it, but he is. He actually is dreamy, if you are talking looks only. And he’s young. I’m only surprised this is happening because the bombing was terrorism and I’m surprised people would cross the killer-lover line for a terrorist, but I guess they will.

                1. Thanks

    4. Woah, woah, do I see Reasonistas actually bagging on someone’s sexual fetishism? Hey, maybe there is a galt after all.

      1. There’s a big difference between harmlessly fantasizing about a fatally self-destructive fetish, and actually pursuing it.

    5. “If you haven’t heard, he getting ton of sex offers and marriage proposals. Barf.”

      In a waiting room, some talk TV show, teen-age twit going on about how she read (on the innertubze) that he’d been set up and she was just dying to meet him!
      The woman host didn’t bother to ask who set him up.
      I didn’t laugh too loud; just sort of giggled.

      1. #FreeJahar on Twitter.

        It’s a growing movement. Among idiots.

        1. Twitter: concentrating the stupidity of the internet since 2006.

          1. The Youtube comments said fuck you.

        2. The man’s served his time giving wishes, he needs to be wished out of that lamp

          #FreeJafar

          1. I … you, uh…I mean…

            *slow shake of the head, accompanying slow but hard clapping*

  7. Rolling Stone knows its audience.

  8. RS got exactly what they want. They’re actually mentioned on the Internet today.

    1. And people said, “Rolling Stones? Is that still published?”

    2. And someone under the age of 60 might buy the magazine.

  9. Jesus Christ, who gives a fuck? Let the outrage machine fire up! But today, half the commentariat at H&R is part of it instead of mocking it! Are you proud?

    1. “I’m looking at the man in the mirror…”

    2. Because if we didn’t, you wouldn’t have anything to bitch about. If it is wrong for us to give a fuck about the picture, what does it say about you giving a fuck about us giving a fuck? Who gives a fuck if I or anyone else doesn’t like it?

      Oh you do because pissing and moaning and being outraged over shit is what you do. Your trick is to be “outraged over outrage” which is somehow different.

      1. So John’s answer to “stop acting like people you mock every day” is to…squirm and act like people he mocks every day. Congratulations, John, you are just like people you despise. Does it feel good?

        1. So John’s answer to “stop acting like people you mock every day” is to…squirm and act like people he mocks every day.

          And your answer to “stop bitching and moaning all of the time about what other people think is worthy of note” is to continue to bitch and moan all of the time about that very same subject. yeah, that is self aware.

          1. I guess it feels too good for you to stop, because you’re sure not going to let this bit out of your teeth. Emotionalism rules, right John? You sure love it. Rationality? That’s for…for…jerks or something!

            1. Emotionalism rules, right John?

              I don’t know. You tell me. You are the one who is emotional and angry. I just think Rolling Stone is vile and enjoy fucking with you because you are such an easy mark.

              1. Your projection is delicious beyond comprehension, John. Thank you for this early-morning gift.

      2. The two of you arguing when you know the other isn’t going to change just PISSES ME OFF!! ARRRRRGH!!

        1. Walk away. Just walk away and leave them be. There has been enough suffering.

          1. Both lord humongouses are the true libertarians.

            1. Isn’t there a vaccination for this type of thing?

              1. A vaccine for lord humongous? I think you have to ram him with a car. Not so much a vaccine.

                1. For the need to bitch slap one another, i.e., Epi and John.

                  The reference to the vaccine was thinly veiled snark.

          2. This is like foreplay for John and Epi.

    3. True, but “radical chic” is definiately a thing. I’d bet good money that by the end of the month, I’ll see some idiot Occutard wearing a T-shirt with that picture on it with the phrase “Occupy Boston Marathon” or something about capitalism.

      And that does deserve our disdain.

      1. *definitely

    1. Ah, the good ol’ days.

  10. I don’t buy Rolling Stone nor do I care about what they put on the cover of their crappy magazine, as long as it’s not some naked fatty.

    IDGAF.

  11. I personally don’t care what RS (or any other magazine) puts on their cover. It’s their damn publication.

  12. Maybe they should put Obama and Tsnarnev on the cover at the same time.

    “Contrast and compare; if you really want to make your mark on the world, you have to bide your time.”

    1. Only if they are making out. With the headline “I’m going to aid and comfort your butthole.”

  13. I’m just outraged Rolling Stone is still in print. Have you no decency, America? Have you no shame?

  14. Rolling Stone is even more hopelessly out of date and irrelevant than the Rolling Stones.

    1. Now John’s going to be really pissed.

    2. Aren’t they on their ‘Steel Wheelchair’ tour?

      1. I thought this was the “Braaaains!!” tour.

        1. Night of the Living Dead!

        2. the “Braaaains!!” tour

          By appearances, you are correct.

      2. Amazing that that joke is like 20 years old now.

        1. Amazing that like 20 years ago the Simpsons totally predicted that they would still be touring in like 20 years and stuff, you know?

  15. Hat tip to sarc!

    Haaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

    1. Fiendish Feeney forgot about Sarc.

      1. *sniff* Everyone does. The only one who remembers my birthday is my bank. Seriously. They call me to wish me a happy birthday. Like I give a shit about my bank wishing me a happy birthday. That just means I have to fucking talk to someone. Fuckers. I need a different bank.

        1. At least your bank puts more effort into it than all my friends (mostly people I haven’t talked to in years) on Facebook do.

        2. The Grantor hereby declares that, under no circumstances, shall any banking institution ever become a Trustee of the Sarc Family Irrevocable Trust. The foregoing command is absolute and subject to no exceptions. The Grantor demands and expects that any arbitrator or court which may have to render findings of fact or issue a ruling of law regarding this provision to give effect to the Grantor’s associational and property rights inclusive of which is his absolute right to choose who shall serve and who shall not serve as a Trustee of an irrevocable trust of his creation.

  16. This is no worse than the time Rolling Stone put Lady GaGa on the cover.

    1. Get out.

      1. Terror comes in many forms.

        1. Hey, its not like they put Warty on the cover. Fame Monster indeed!

          1. I believe that you’re looking for ‘Fangoria’?

    2. They’ve not been about rock and roll since Jan Wenner got into celebrity c*cksucking. Check out some of the covers from back in the 80s. I mean, Dolly Parton?

  17. Blowing up children: All the kewl kidz are doin’ it!

  18. I plant a pressure cooker bomb
    That causes all kinds of harm
    But the thrill I will never know
    Is the thrill that will get ya
    When you get your picture
    On the cover of the Rolling Stone

    1. Nice.

  19. My Opinion: Saying that “its just a picture” is a bullshit argument. Symbols do mean something. In many cases, symbols mean a lot. To minimize the fact that rolling stone chose to portray this guy as a soft-eyed Bob Dylan-type character symbolizes whats in the heart of their decision-makers (in addition to the desire forfree publicity). They KNOW that they are celebretizing this man, and (symbolically) demonstrating solidarity. Lets ask Kurt Loder what he thinks.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.