Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Censorship Iphone The Media Apple Politics

Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store 664

ink writes "Here is another troubling anecdote on the iWeb front: 'This week cartoonist Mark Fiore made Internet and journalism history as the first online-only journalist to win a Pulitzer Prize. Fiore took home the editorial cartooning prize for animations he created for SFGate, the website for the San Francisco Chronicle... But there's just one problem. In December, Apple rejected his iPhone app, NewsToons, because, as Apple put it, his satire "ridicules public figures," a violation of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, which bars any apps whose content in "Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory."' Whether or not you agree with Fiore's political sentiments, I believe we can all agree that the censorship of his work should be denigrated."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:10PM (#31863698)

    Because Apple has neither a monopoly on desktop computers nor on smart phones? And thus can not be guilty of "monopolistic" behavior?

  • Not unusual (Score:2, Informative)

    by AmericanGladiator ( 848223 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:11PM (#31863706)
    Just Wal-Mart deciding it isn't going to carry porn in its DVD collection. Nobody's freedom of speech is being violated here.
  • by Itninja ( 937614 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:14PM (#31863754) Homepage
    Because nothing that MS has made in the last decade gave the fanboi's hard-ons like Mac products. Go back in time 20 years and IBM was in the role of MS and MS was in the role currently held by Apple. Apple is well on their way to being the Borg.....
  • by ink ( 4325 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:17PM (#31863802) Homepage

    Where did you read "freedom of speech" in TFA? I don't recall typing that....

  • Dollars to Donuts... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gyrogeerloose ( 849181 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:22PM (#31863886) Journal

    ...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.

  • by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:28PM (#31863962) Journal

    What about Apple demanding from Bild that they remove content from their (not part of their app, but accessible through their app) PDF edition?
    What's next? Apple demanding web site content to be edited to its liking? After all, you can browse the web with the iPhone.

  • by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @05:38PM (#31864120) Homepage Journal

    It is censorship. Nowhere in the definition of that word is there anything about an obligation to publish something. You're just making up an arbitrary definition to support Apple. Wikipedia:

    Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

    The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.

  • by bmk67 ( 971394 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @06:28PM (#31864808)

    Nobody said it did. But, as I said in other replies, declining with an agenda is the very essence of censorship.

    No, it isn't. Suppression is the essence of censorship.

    Ain't nobody suppressing shit here.

  • by schlick ( 73861 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @06:53PM (#31865100)

    I love how some people are crying "censorship." These people are claiming that Apple is "oppressing" everyone and specifically Mark Fiore by not allowing him to publish his comic on in their app store.

    First of all, if this were "oppression" then is would only be the "oppression" of iPhone users and Mark Fiore. No where has Apple claimed to be a platform for free speech. Some Apple customers don't seem to understand that by choosing Apple you are choosing a company that wants to CONTROL your experience with their products. Regardless of why they want that control, they still want it and do a great deal to secure it.

    Second, it seems to me that these people forget an important aspect of Freedom, specifically the freedom to associate OR NOT with those whom we choose. Like it or not, Apple enjoys that freedom as well as the rest of us.

    Apple's policies in this matter break no law. When you bought an iPhone you implicitly agreed to them. When you develop for the iPhone you explicitly agree to them. Stop complaining about the results of your own stupid choice. Think about shit like this before you buy a company's products.

    Now on a different note, censorship.
    Who decided that all censorship was bad? Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to censor their platform? It is theirs after all. Why should Apple be forced to publish material that they don't want to publish? Apple censoring their products is well with their rights and a perfectly legitimate thing to do. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU ARE FREE TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING OR USING APPLE PRODUCTS!

    Suggesting that a company censoring their own platforms is equal to the government preventing the free exchange of ideas is ridiculous, therefore I ridicule it.

    Equating this act of self censorship with a government policy preventing the free exchange of ideas is evil, whereas Apple not publishing this guys comic strip not.

    For the record, I do not own an iPhone. The only apple product I own is an (older) iPod. I do not buy media content (music or video) from Apple. I am not an Apple fan-boy or apologist, it just really bugs me when people have these f'ed up arguments that don't really make sense.

  • by s73v3r ( 963317 ) <> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:03PM (#31865204)
    That's because Microsoft abused their OS monopoly position to gain another monopoly in the browser market. Apple has yet to do so with using their iPod monopoly in the music sales market.
  • by s73v3r ( 963317 ) <> on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:05PM (#31865246)
    On MP3 players. That's not smartphones. And they haven't abused their monopoly position like MS did. Microsoft told OEMs, "You can NOT install any other browser on this machine but ours." You can buy MP3s from anywhere and play them on the iPod as long as they don't have DRM.
  • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:05PM (#31865248)

    And therefore there should be none. 'Cause that's crimethink.

  • by Corporate Drone ( 316880 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:13PM (#31865356)

    Walmart opting not to carry certain songs with explicit lyric is censorship.

    Publishers declining to publish works that make them uncomfortable, despite whether or not it would sell, is censorship.

    A government body stopping such is unconstitutional censorship, but other kinds can and do exist.

    When you deny access due to content arbitrarily, and without using any reasonable standard, that is a form of censorship - whether or not it is conducted by a government body.

    Your definition is untenable -- according to you, any expression of choice in selection of content is censorship; that just doesn't cut it. In a free market, content creators have the right to create (or decline to create) content; distributors have the right to distribute (or decline to distribute) content products; and consumers have the right to buy (or decline to buy) products. Period.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:18PM (#31865428)

    Also, I do not regard this as censorship and wish people would quit abusing that term to the point that it has no meaning.

    From Webster: [] "censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>"

    It's censorship.

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @07:27PM (#31865540)

    Do you see publishing criteria as censorship?

    Yes, which is why the people that enforce such criteria (e.g., in broadcast networks) are often known as "censors".

    And, whether or not it is legal or moral, the fact that there is a single institutional censor with control of the native apps available for a platform is, for a certain segment of the market, an important consideration.

  • by socsoc ( 1116769 ) on Thursday April 15, 2010 @09:57PM (#31866930)

    The mere mention of the word censorship implies that you believe your rights have been stepped on 1st amendment or otherwise.

    Please read the first word of the amendment. Congress. How does that apply to a private company? If I was a bookstore and didn't like you or the books you've theoretically authored, it'd be the same scenario.

  • by Serious Callers Only ( 1022605 ) on Friday April 16, 2010 @05:24AM (#31869236)

    the censorship of his work should be denigrated.[sic]

    No, Apple denigrated [sic] themselves long ago, and Steve's fans continuously denigrate themselves by supporting his behavior with their wallet.

    Denigrate means to criticise unfairly - to defame or disparage, it doesn't mean criticised (as in the first quote), or demean - sinking to a low level (as in your quote).

    As to the censorship, I agree Apple are making themselves look silly, and will eventually drive customers away as a result of their obsession with control over their new platform.

Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!