Apple Bans Sale of Comic Book On All iOS Apps Over Gay Sex Images - Update 299
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The For Profit Agenda. (Score:3)
Companies have a simple Agenda and people will tend to read too much in it.
Apples Goal is to make money. There are different ways to make money. Some companies make money by serving the niche markets other make money selling general products. Apple is the later.
Why does Apple choose to censor their Apps? Well to make money, If they allow images that the general population recognizes as inappropriate then it will get a recognition as being a source, and those rich parents will not get their kids an apple p
Re:Filthy shades of gay (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is a company that decided their business structure and standards, long damn ago.
If you haven't clued in from the very beginning, with 1 mouse button and no console, they think you are TOO DAMN STUPID to make choices for yourself.
This has been reflected in their products, software and hardware from day one. So, no surprises here.
Since they assign themselves guardianship over their faithful devotees( the stupid of the world, by their vision) Apple wouldn't want that image to fall into the hand of some kid who might get the idea " hey , maybe I can talk Billy into putting mine in his mouth, that would feel neater than whackin' it myself" and then decide arbitrarily that it must mean he is gay and summarily embrace the lifestyle ,erroneously. Nope, Apple is there to protect everyone from themselves, just like a Repubmocrat in Federal office. They know better than YOU, after all. Which is why they have such a huge following. There is a demographic of people out there, that don't like to think for themselves in real life, are willing to let others authoritate their will, and be parented in a strange Freudian sense, by others. ( This may also explain the last century of Repubmocrat tyranny, as well)
So what is all the surprise and silly noises about? This is not outside the historical scope of Apple.
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:5, Insightful)
To play devil's advocate, perhaps Apple simply didn't get any complaints until the issue involving gay sex, or that they had gotten a complaint from a previous episode but hadn't gotten around to shutting it down until it coincided with the one with gay sex.
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:4, Informative)
As I understand it, prior issues #1-11 with various explicit heterosexual encounters are still available at Apple. Only issue #12 with minimal gay sex has been banned/removed.
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:4, Funny)
As I understand it, it is because those in charge at Apple feel that gay sex is a real pain in the backside. Personally, I wouldn't know; it's not something I have experience with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What we're saying is that [Apple] are homophobes?
Perhaps they thought the gay images would be too exciting for their customers?
There goes my karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:4, Insightful)
RTFA. Apple let plenty of heterosexual sex pass.
Apparently, the influence of the reality distortion field still hasn't worn off.
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:5, Informative)
Have you seen the images?
The "hetero" image shows a bit of side boob and perhaps some nipple and that's it. The blocked image shows full on male genitalia in mouth in two separate frames.
The actual act in the hetero image is more disturbing and is larger, but the image shows no actual genitalia, male or female.
Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (Score:5, Informative)
Issue #4 of the comic features heterosexual sex, including penetration. Apple didn't have any problems with it going on sale. Issue #12 features two small depictions of gay sex, and it's banned. FUD? Nah, just facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Men sleeping with women is misogynous? Oh dear.
So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the appropriate response to being censored now is to roll over? No fight whatsoever?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only governments can sensor. Sure you can do e.g. dmca takedowns, but it is up to the government to enforce that at gunpoint.
You can refuse to pay the lawyers, and you can refuse to go to court, but if you refuse to go to jail for contempt of court the police will drag you there at gunpoint.
I'm no fan of apple by any stretch, but the app store is their property, and their private domain that they are free to remove you from if they don't like you. If you don't like it, go to a more open platform like androi
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone can censor, but only government censorship is typically limited by legal "free speech" provisions like those of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.
Private censorship -- especially by a player with substantial market power -- can have similar effects and raise similar ethical issues to government censorship, even if it isn't addressed by the same legal provisions.
Sony v. Hotz (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony at no point ever had any arrest powers. Could they petition the government to do so? Yeah, but they themselves can not. That is why it is ultimately the government who censors.
Re: (Score:3)
"The" government does not run around with guns. That would mainly be members of the police and the military. If either (or both) chose to ignore the orders of government, how would government force them to obey? Issue further orders, also to be disobeyed?
The police, having the powers of government behind them, do a lot of shit
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint
Since whenever they are holding a gun pointed at you. Or are you arguing against the 2nd Amendment as well?
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:4, Insightful)
I never said they did. In fact, the fact that they generally don't is why, whereas (as I stated in GP) private censorship, particularly by a party with substantial market power, can raise some similar ethical issues to government censorship (specifically, in allowing one party to control the ideas that can effectively be communicated), they don't raise an identical spectrum of issues to government censorship.
Which is, exactly, private censorship.
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
To all those who grumble about Big Government. Get a clue, it's quality not quantity that matters. Don't be surprised things don't get better if you all keep trying to fix the wrong thing.
All those nice "amendments" and laws like FOIA do not apply to Corporations. So if you replace Big Ugly Government with Big Ugly Corp, you'd be more screwed.
The likes of Apple aren't going to hold elections every few years to let the riff-raff vote for different bosses or even put up with the inconvenience of merely pretending to do so.
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint from a libertarian: Big Corp exists because of Big Government.
Hint from someone who doesn't have his head rammed up his butt: No, it doesn't.
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that is true (which it's not- there's nothing stopping a corporation from growing larger if it has enough resources) Big Corps would still continue existing after you get rid of Big Government. They're not going to magically vanish just because one country goes up in smoke.
And if you had any sense you'd realize it's far easier for a big corporation to bully a small government or work with a corrupt small government. They would be very happy to take over or use the government as its army. There would be very little that a small government can do to stop it if no big government/organization with a larger military steps in to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Military_expansion [wikipedia.org]
The Dutch East India Company (VOC) was also arguably the first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[4] negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.[5]
Think it can't happen today? http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-shells-oil-africas-blood/ [projectcensored.org]
The only thing stopping them from doing worse stuff are big governments with bigger "guns".
If Mr Sociopath Billionaire CEO didn't have to worry about pesky big governments cramping his style what do you think he'd do? Behave better?
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is that the meaning of "censor"?
"...to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable" [merriam-webster.com].
I know it's fashionable for apologists for corporatism to claim that only the state can censor; but it happens to be wrong. When a private company decides "this is objectionable", that's censorship. (Note that deciding "this won't sell therefore we don't want to waste space carrying it" is different.)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of censorship doesn't include "at gunpoint" or "imprison you" in it.
Apple isn't doing that, they're just saying "not in my app store"
And the Galaxies, despite all Apple's bullying, have started outselling iPhones. Looks like the market has finally started exerting the one power it has, saying "Your app store? Not on my phone!"
Re: (Score:2)
Except they have no other means to put applications on your device than their "their store"..
But this is not an app, it is content. And there are plenty of ways to get content onto your device. Even the article itself says that you can still purchase the content and put it onto an iOS device, you just can't buy it through Apple.
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:4, Informative)
Only governments can sensor.
That's bullshit. Companies use the government to protect their market. It is their tool. Things like DMCA, and even copyright itself are industry sponsored, written laws enforced with the government's gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Send to jail" isn't part of the definition of censorship.
No wierdos allowed (Score:2)
This is why I have never been tempted to buy a ticket into Apple's "walled garden". It's not that it's overtly bad, it's just has a giant "no weirdos allowed" sign at the entrance. I *like* the weirdos. I find the fact that the weirdos can do their weirdo things comforting. When the wierdonium level in the social construct around me drops below a certain level I go into withdrawal. It's not a good thing! Weirdonium starts running from my pores in an attempt to fill the void. Luckily there's a place on Amazo
Re:No wierdos allowed (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never been tempted to buy a ticket into Apple's "walled garden". It's not that it's overtly bad,
Right, it's not that it's overtly bad, it's just that the system is set up in a way that someday, it's inevitable will cause you pain. Just like monarchies can be great in the beginning when the king is benign and an excellent administrator (hey, the trains run on time!) Eventually someone else will come into power, and you don't want to be involved in a system like that. Best to avoid it when it's easiest, from the beginning.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
T
Re:So long, farewell... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Only governments can sensor."
For god's sake, you don't even know how to SPELL "censor". I mean, look it up in a dictionary; it's not restricted to governments.
- True statement: "The First Amendment only applies to the government."
- False statement: "Censorship is something only government can do."
Privately-owned broadcast television companies and publishing houses have in-house staff who function as censors.
http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-to-get-back-at-network-censor.html
Re: (Score:2)
Only governments can sensor.
Never used America Online?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a sec (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Wait a sec (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
Re: (Score:2)
105 countries' GDP is smaller than $46B/yr (Score:2)
No corporation is sufficiently large to be confused with larger governments.
That depends on what you consider to be "larger governments." "Apple by the Numbers" by Scott Austin [wsj.com] claims that there are 105 countries whose gross domestic product is smaller than Apple Inc.'s revenue of $46 billion per year.
Re:105 countries' GDP is smaller than $46B/yr (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Any confidently-stated opinion is indistinguishable from fact
Re: (Score:2)
No matter where you live, you can always ignore Apple. And pretty much any corporation for that matter. They are not governing you; they try to sell you something. You don't like them? Don't buy anything from them.
However you can not normally ignore your government. If you don't pay your taxes, they'll come after you. If you don't follow their rules, they'll come after you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
No, its not. Censorship is an act anyone can do. Its an act that raises a particular set of issues when governments do it (which is the reason that, e.g., the U.S. government is restrained in its power to do it by the First Amendment to the US Constitution), a related but distinct set of issues when powerful private interests do it, and reduced or no significant issues when less powerful non-government interests do it.
A number of people have a limited understanding of cens
Re: (Score:2)
No, the appropriate response is not bother with a walled garden YOU DO NOT OWN unless it PAYS to do so.
If another business doesn't want your product it need not carry it.
Re: (Score:2)
So the appropriate response to being censored now is to roll over? No fight whatsoever?
How ya gonna fight it? It's in the EULA bro. Don't like it? Move to android where 75% (and growing) of the mobile users are located.
Re: (Score:3)
Well an obvious way is to complain if you're an Apple customer. Honestly, companies behave this way because a lot of very ridiculous minority groups raise a HUGE fuss against stuff like this on TV, or in the AppStore or whatnot. But the majority of people who could care less, or simply think parents should look at the ratings before handing it to their kids? They don't bother to raise a fuss. They shrug and move on. So yes, buying android is a solution (and a decent one at that, after all, taking away
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to Apple, more or less, yes. Other options: don't use the care bear garden.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that Apple has a history of e.g. excluding journalists who criticize them from events. Regarding the app approval process, they've said pretty clearly that if you complain publicly, expect life to get harder for you.
Once you've made yourself dependent on them, you pretty much need to stay on their good side.
Isn't it wonderful? (Score:3, Insightful)
We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality
Are we "thinking different" enough yet?
Re: (Score:2)
We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality
Only if you buy Apple. This is what you get when you buy into a system with a gatekeeper. Stuff gets kept out.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality
You think the word "legislate" means something other than what it actually does.
I thought it was well known (Score:3)
that you can't get porn on iPhones/iPads.
Is gay porn somehow different and worthy of new nerd rage?
Re:I thought it was well known (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I thought it was well known (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be curious to see the examples they were talking about. I'd say in general that male genitalia are the most pornographic body part of either gender, and that images involving men are generally considered more pornographic than those involving women, ie two women is less pornographic than a mixed pair, which is less pornographic than two guys. Basically I'm saying it's not clear that it's discrimination at work so much as different standards as to what constitutes pornography.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying previous issues had female on male blowjobs that were allowed through, and #12 had the male on male blowjob that was banned?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, took a look, it had sex. Either they missed it previously or the guy doing the review was homophobic (or both or some other combo).
Nothing new here (Score:4, Informative)
You might take a look at This Film Is Not Yet Rated [imdb.com]. Not saying it's correct. Just pointing out that treating homosexual sex more strictly than heterosexual sex has been a given in the film business for a long time. Looks like Apple is just following precedent from a different media.
BTW, it's actually a good flick. Definitely worth watching with regard to how MPAA rates movies.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:I thought it was well known (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but what is worthy of nerd rage is when a company discriminates and prohibits depictions of gay activities when it allows depictions of straight activities. And the "rage" is not so much over the discrimination itself, but over Apple's hypocrisy and pretense of being a liberal and modern organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your neanderthal homophobia is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
How so?
Straight porn isn't allowed either (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
RTFA. Apple apparently tolerated straight sex from this publisher, but kicked them out when they put in something gay themed that was much more tame. And the outrage isn't "faux" and it isn't even over discrimination. The outrage is that Apple pretends to be a modern and liberal company, but then behaves like some Christian conservative family organization. And the solution is simply not to buy Apple, for the simple reason that their products are boring, their content is boring, and it is beyond anybody's p
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. Apple apparently tolerated straight sex from this publisher, but kicked them out when they put in something gay themed that was much more tame. And the outrage isn't "faux" and it isn't even over discrimination. The outrage is that Apple pretends to be a modern and liberal company, but then behaves like some Christian conservative family organization. And the solution is simply not to buy Apple, for the simple reason that their products are boring, their content is boring, and it is beyond anybody's power to change that.
The outrage is even broader.
If stuff in their shop doesn't match their whims then letting it should not go in it. Never. Not be put in it. Once it has been on the shop they can't get rid of it. That should teach them due dilligence.
This is also precisely the reason why each of my Amazon purchases get deDRMed and backupped. You can't trust those guys either.
No, my intent of this purchase wasn't obtaining a license at the price of the real paper thing. No, you don't get to revoke that license you somehow
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're an idiot. Lets show your 6 year old daughter some anal penetration porn in her my little pony app, see how that goes over. Fuckwads like you are a blight on society.
As long as said anal penetration earns the my little pony app an M+ rating, why not? I do believe this is exactly why Apple instituted the rating system; so that parents can decide what level of app is appropriate for their child(ren) and then block access to the rest.
It's Apple who cares? (Score:2)
I misread that as "Apple bans Comic Sans" (Score:2)
and was giddy for a moment
Re: (Score:2)
Comic sans
Fanboys getting all up-ans
Gosh I feel so much safer (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our making the choice for us overlords.
Oh, by the way, Its a cookbook!
Solution (Score:2)
Update too little too late (Score:4, Informative)
The "update" (retraction) of this story was posted after the story had left the front page. Slashdot readers are only going to see yesterday's unjustified criticism of Apple and their supposed agenda. How many times in the next six months are the Android-trolls going to refer to this story as an example of Apple's control-freak tendency, without being aware that it was based on a lie?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming this is a piece of content that is purchased through an app that runs on the device, i.e. comixology or whatever.
Apple banning someone from selling something seems an overreach. It's not my device if I can't buy what I want with it...
You can apparently buy it through a web browser on the comixology website and download it, just not buy it from your iPad... weak sauce
Re: (Score:3)
Except that, as noted in even TFS, they haven't for similar non-gay sexual depictions sold through the same venues.
Re:Gay (Score:5, Informative)
Except that for previous even more graphic heterosexual content in the same comic, they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
every hipster's head just exploded
That's so gay.
:-P
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
who would have thought something could be too gay for apple?
Re: (Score:3)
who would have thought something could be too gay for apple?
Could explain why the original rainbow-colored Apple stickers were redesigned and are now solid white.
Re:It's apple (Score:5, Funny)
Why are we surprised about this and why is this even news worthy?
Well, given the certain steriotypical stigma ususally applied to fans of Apple products, this is quite a surprising turn of events.
Re:OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not actually about gay rights, the author is trying to make it seem like being about gay rights in order to get more attention. If Apple were actually anti-gay, why did the donate so much money to stop proposition 8? It's more likely Apple just never noticed it until that time.
So it was a totally arbitrary decision and not anti-gay?
They could go after other comics that have sex in them next.
The John Constantine comics contain quite a lot of sex for the purpose of black magic and could be considered perverted. From Hell has a lot of sex in it. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has a lot of sex in it. Quite a lot of comics sold by Amazon for their Kindle app have sex in it.
If they are Thinking Of The Children then they always go the route of age restrictions.
You know, that a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think stuff gets changed if you aren't emotional about it?
Complacently chewing regurgitated stuff is for bovines. They don't collectively complain about being turned into hamburger.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think stuff gets changed if you aren't emotional about it?
By wise, rational people.
Definitely not by doing what you're doing.
donating to the SPCA doesn't excuse kicking a dog (Score:2)
If Apple were actually anti-gay, why did the donate so much money to stop proposition 8? It's more likely Apple just never noticed it until that time.
Donating to the SPCA doesn't morally or legally excuse you kicking your dog, or lend defense against being labelled an animal abuser. A close parallel would be the "feminist cookie"; another would be "I'm not racist, I have black friends."
Further, given that donation amount consists of an extremely tiny percentage of Apple's cash resources, the gesture wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
mellow dramatic twist of fate!
I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but it is now in my Phrase List and I hunger for a chance to use it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to defend Apple, but you got to admit, it's Apple's own turf, directly or indirectly we're talking about their servers. Even if you try to get the comic through a 3rd party app, the app must be downloaded through their servers. Is it an asshole thing to do? Since they don't let applications to be installed from outside the Appstore, I say yes. Who to blame? Their beloved costumers, as they are the ones funding this system.
Apple is not telling them how to run their business. Image Comics still can cr
Re:Sarcasm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sensitive gay issues are best solved by Preparation H, not censorship.