Babylon Village Locals: Rolling Stone Crossed the Line

The cover of the latest Rolling Stone features Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It's not a grainy image from a surveillance camera or a mug shot but it shows a hip-looking young man, his mussy hair and goatee making him seem more like one of the rock stars the music magazine frequently covers rather than possibly the most hated man in the United States right now. A suspected terrorist. The cover photo supports the investigative piece inside outlining what made the boy turn into a killer.

But since the cover was announced to the public there has been a backlash. Several stores, including Stop & Shop, CVS and Walgreen's, have refused to carry the latest issue of Rolling Stone Magazine because of its decision to put Tsarnaev on the cover.

We posed the question on our Facebook page and asked readers if they agreed with the retailers' decision. Here is what a few of your neighbors are saying:

Gina Grassullo-Fedoryk: It should be pulled from everywhere. He needs not to be making money or showing his face on the cover of a magazine. RS should be ashamed of themselves!!!!

Joanne Christy Killeen: Most would concede that this particular photo made Tsarnaev look attractive rather than like a 'monster,' which paints him in a more sympathetic light. The rest of the tag line is more biased: Tsarnaev was "failed" by his family, "fell" into terrorism. The cover implies Tsarnaev had no choice--yet he most certainly did.

Sandi Wood Breuninger: Very glad to hear that..hope all stores do the same..

Richard Harty: Part of "the point" is to show that even a young, good-lookin' kid that you might see in any college classroom or rock band might be radicalized. Rolling Stone even called him a "monster" right there on the cover. I'm OK with it.

Valerie Mangano-Bifulco: They cover timely topics; not just stories about rock stars and they called him a monster.

There was no outrage when they put Charles Manson on the cover.

Erica Scalise: Yes

Troy F. Smith: What about the news stations that had this guys face on every TV in the nation for 48 hours? They have every right to print whatever they want, they don't have to listen to what cvs says. Was it a tacky choice for a cover? Possibly. But I bet more stores sell out of this issue then not carry it.

Marie Mingione-Lynch: Just as it is the magazine's constitutional right to put this creep on the cover these companies have the constitutional right to ban the sale of this particular edition from their stores. God bless our great country.

Bill Costanzo: Yes

Inez Fontana Schillinger: Agree! Those stores can choose to carry & sell whatever they want just like RS chose to put his pic on their over to SELL their magazine!

Jim Brown: When you consider LIFE 11/26/1965, John & Yoko 11/22/1981, Time 9/14/2001, the New Yorker 7/21/2008 and many more, where does this fall within the pantheon of controversial covers?

Nicole Johnson-Cirulnick: Why would they ever do that is beyond me...lets make a sociopath a celebrity. ...well if Rolling Stone was looking for people to be talking about their magazine job accomplished.

Rob Camacho: It's a tough one to debate. Rolling Stone can put whoever they want on their cover.I do not have to buy it. I won't. I just question the motive.. sell magazines????? the executives their make a lot of money i'm sure!... that's the best they could do???...

Jackie Bowers Riker: I agree. If this infamy is glamorized in any way, who knows where stuff like this will pop up next. This isn't an entertaining reality show. It is real. People really died. People really lost their limbs. Their real lives are changed forever. That pic is too provocative. RS is not the mag to cover that story. Others maybe. And, even then, do not put the face of evil on the cover.

Continue the conversation. Tell us what you think. Do you agree that stores should ban the issue on their shelves?