Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Apple Bans Sale of Comic Book On All iOS Apps Over Gay Sex Images - Update 299

Posted by Soulskill
from the past-lessons-remain-unlearned dept.
New submitter RicardoGCE writes "Apple has banned all iOS apps from carrying Saga #12, a comic book created by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples, and published by Image Comics. The reason for the ban is the depiction of oral sex appearing on the computer monitor that serves as the head of one of the characters. The content has been deemed pornographic, and sale of the comic has been blocked. Comixology will allow users to sync their purchases, however, so users of their app will be able to read the book on their i-devices. They just won't be able to buy it through the iOS version of the app." Vaughan himself points out the sexual representation in this issue ("two postage stamp-sized images") are not as graphic or as prominent as other situations from past issues. The difference is that this depiction is of a homosexual encounter rather than a heterosexual one. Image Comics took the high road, saying they regret the decision, but that it's "Apple’s decision and it would be inappropriate for us to tell another company how to run its business."
Update: 04/10 18:36 GMT by S : As it turns out, reports of Apple censorship were wrong. Comixology posted today on their blog that they were the ones who decided to remove the issue of Saga from the app. They did so because they were trying to follow Apple's content guidelines. The issue will be available via their app soon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Bans Sale of Comic Book On All iOS Apps Over Gay Sex Images - Update

Comments Filter:
  • Filthy shades of gay (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Reality Man (2890429) on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @10:09PM (#43408407)
    Can't have that at Apple, can we?
  • Wait a sec (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fyngyrz (762201) on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @10:28PM (#43408517) Homepage Journal

    Censorship is a government function; it is repression. Anti-freedom in every sense of the word, using power backed by violence. When an individual or a corporation decides it will not (or will) go somewhere, and government doesn't get in the way, that is an actual *use* of freedom.

    I would not make the same decision -- I think it is the exact wrong way to go -- but it is simply wrong to call making this choice "censorship."

    If you don't like it, you can always vote with your wallet, and encourage others to do so as well. But stick to the issue at hand: Apple has decided to limit information flow from its developers and content providers to its customers. Don't like it? Fine. Don't do business with them, take them to task for doing business the way they do, stand in front of HQ with rainbow signs, do business directly with the content providers, etc.

  • Sony v. Hotz (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @10:56PM (#43408687) Homepage Journal

    Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

    Since Sony threatened exactly that in Sony v. Hotz.

    Apple isn't doing that, they're just saying "not in my app store"

    You're correct that Apple hasn't gone all Sony v. Hotz on those who enable jailbreaking. Yet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @11:11PM (#43408775)

    Just remember folks - that since they are choosing to only allow certain things that fit their "ideas of good and right" - then anything they do let in, if it harms you or your device in any way, the onus is on Apple to make good on it. They become, as gatekeepers to their domain, responsible for *ALL* activities that occur within it.

    Someone cyberstalking you? Apple is responsible. Someone tracks you, steals from your home based on info from your iDevice? Apple is responsible, legally and financially.

    That's the problem with setting up that walled garden, since you restrict the "bad elements", whatever you let in, you become responsible for their actions.

    Can't have one without the other.

    Let the data-loss, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying lawsuits commence....

  • by khallow (566160) on Tuesday April 09, 2013 @11:26PM (#43408861)
    What's Apple's direct GDP contribution? That's the actual apples to apples comparison after all. I imagine it's much closer to their net income than their revenue. That drops their GDP contribution by almost a factor of four. I'd say it contributes about as much GDP as Uruguay did in 2012. That's nice, but that's not a large country.

    Uruguay is a country of a bit under 3.4 million people, and it has a military of about 25,000 people. Apple has power only as long as it maintains that GDP contribution and its profit. Uruguay's power comes from its monopoly of power status over 3.4 million people. When you toss in the substantial constraints on the power of Apple, I think it's rash to compare the power of a corporation to that of even a government of comparable size.

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Working...