There’s been an outcry over this week’s Rolling Stone cover, featuring the Boston bomber. Some stores are refusing to carry the issue, and many people are boycotting the magazine in complaint.

While everyone has the right to protest, and while stores have the right to not sell the magazine, I find myself more in support of the magazine than the protesters.

The best argument the protesters have is that terrorists and criminals should not be given any publicity because it could encourage copy-cats.

But then some are against the cover because then bomber “looks like a rock star” as if the magazine is promoting him — this despite the words on the cover calling him a “monster.”

But isn’t that the point of the article? Not all bad guys look like bad guys. Not all evil Mulsim terrorists look like bin Laden.

Also, this is news. Rolling Stone does cover the news too, you know — it’s not just a music magazine. It’s won awards for its news coverage. Sometimes bad guys make the news.

I don’t know, this seems kind of like punishing the messenger. The article doesn’t sympathize with him or paint him in a good light in any way; it’s an attempt to understand how a kid like that could do something so terrible.