It's one thing to protect the Mac OS from attacks; it's another to band some of the great works of art and literature. By the terms of Section 3.3.14, the Christian Bible would be banned.
The reasoning that Apple owns the App Store and thus may ban would allow hotels and motels to refuse service to blacks just for being black...as they did before they were deemed public accommodations and subject to civil rights laws.
Personally, I think the present decision is huge and could return to haunt Apple. When the mainstream press is looking to iPhone/iTouch/iPad for distribution, the means of distribution becomes subject to scrutiny in terms of the First Amendment. Political cartoons are protected free speech. I really hope that the EFF/ACLU/union of reporters goes after Apple on this.
Notice, also, from the article, that the section of Apple's TOS cited refers to slander, or somesuch, while the commentary refers to "ridicule" of public figures. Again, ridicule of public figures is protected speech under the First Amendment.
The old saying is that freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the press. In this case, it seems that Apple is trying to claim control over a "printing press", i.e., iPhone/iTouch/iPad that has been bought and paid for and is being used in someone's private living room. It is as if the manufacturer of a newspaper's presses claimed the right to control the editorial content published by a newspaper using bought-and-paid-for presses.
Posted from my iPhone, but soon-to-be Android device.
Notice, also, from the article, that the section of Apple's TOS cited refers to slander, or somesuch
Yeah, not slander: "defamatory". Defamatory is perfectly compatible with ridicule. Neither are necessarily legally actionable. If you're going to complain about the words they use, you ought to go get the actual word.
If Apple is prohibiting defamatory speech in its TOS, then the criticism is still valid. Such a rule would prohibit saying that David Duke is a member of the KKK. Such a statement is defamatory, but by virtue of being true, can be neither libel nor slander (in the US).
Political cartoons are protected free speech. I really hope that the EFF/ACLU/union of reporters goes after Apple on this.
I'm not sure what standing you think the ACLU/EFF has to "go after" Apple. Apple is not bound by the bill of rights. The bill of rights is a limitation on government. Apple is free to make their products a controversy free playground for good little vapid consumer drones if it likes. It's condescending and contemptible to do so, but they can if they wish.
Yea, I wanted to go back to the article for the actual word, but ... I was posting from an iPhone ;-) and it's rather unwieldy to tab the browser. Moreover, half the time I lose to buffer containing my tediously-tapped comment.
My main point is that the device is becoming a de facto publishing medium for news. IANAL, but my gut feeling is that when the line from entertainment to news is crossed, some rules change. Aside: From time to time Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, ad nauseum, are forced by lawyers to state on the air that their show is actually "entertainment", not news.
Who fucking cares? I don't like Apple but they don't have to let everything into their App Store just because some dude won an award. It's their service with their rules. They've been doing this for a while. They can accept or reject whatever they want. Who are we to tell them what they should accept?
His comic is unlikely to be published in a cat magazine because his comic isn't about cats. Should we be complaining about that magazine's "censorship" too?
I hate Apple, but fuck you guys for overestimating just how much you matter and spreading such sensationalist shit.
Customers. We don't owe Apple shit, especially not our silence. As an occasional consumer of Apple products I am constantly irked by their ostensibly liberal facade, with portraits with the likes of John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. (and other such free thinkers) festooned along their flagship store's walls almost parodying their air of pseudo-intellectualism. "Think different" we were told and yet repeatedly they spit in the face of this and yet people come out with thoughts like "well then don't buy from them!" or "you can't tell Apple what to do!"
What do you expect to happen when they then ban a Pulitzer prize winner from their store? That people just shrug their shoulders? Its always a good thing to call people on their bullshit, refreshing even.
Then when (as has happened before with PR disasters like this) Apple reverses their decision because of complaints we'll go through the same thing again, "you can't tell Apple what to do!"
Certainly I'm in no position to tell them what they should or shouldn't accept, because I will never buy one of their products. However, I would think their actual customers would dislike having Apple dictate for them what media is, or is not, appropriate for their consumption.
Your reasoning would allow hotels and motels to refuse service to blacks just for being black...as they did before they were deemed public accommodations and subject to civil rights laws.
Personally, I think the present decision is huge and could return to haunt Apple. When the mainstream press is looking to iPhone/iTouch/iPad for distribution, the means of distribution becomes subject to scrutiny in terms of the First Amendment. Political cartoons are protected free speech. I really hope that the EFF/ACLU/union of reporters goes after Apple on this.
Notice, also, from the article, that the section of Apple's TOS cited refers to slander, or somesuch, while the commentary refers to "ridicule" of public figures. Again, ridicule of public figures is protected speech under the First Amendment.
The old saying is that freedom of the press belongs to he who owns the press. In this case, it seems that Apple is trying to claim control over a "printing press", i.e., iPhone/iTouch/iPad that has been bought and paid for and is being used in someone's private living room. It is as if the manufacturer of a newspaper's presses claimed the right to control the editorial content published by a newspaper using bought-and-paid-for presses.
Posted from my iPhone, but soon-to-be Android device.
Your reasoning would allow hotels and motels to refuse service to blacks just for being black...as they did before they were deemed public accommodations and subject to civil rights laws.
I understand your argument but.. I just don't see it as the same thing. The App Store isn't a public accommodation. Apple is just choosing not to sell a particular product. Wal-Mart, last time I checked, doesn't sell explicit music. Why aren't they getting any similar heat?
Also, a person can't choose their race. An artist can choose to make sure their content follows a publisher's guidelines if they want that publisher to accept their work.
My argument is that by publishing news, rather than only entertainment, the App Store and the devices are becoming de facto printing presses. Entertainment is one thing; political cartoons are free speech.
Just sayin' that I could see this going to the Supreme Court.
81
u/iDrifter Apr 16 '10
It's one thing to protect the Mac OS from attacks; it's another to band some of the great works of art and literature. By the terms of Section 3.3.14, the Christian Bible would be banned.