Lawmakers Question Apple Over Cancellation of Jon Stewart's Show (engadget.com) 98
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: A group of lawmakers from a House of Representatives committee wants Apple, like many Jon Stewart enthusiasts, to explain why its streaming arm abruptly canceled the talk show The Problem With Jon Stewart. The current affairs TV series hosted by Jon Stewart briefly made its debut on Apple TV+ in 2021 but its time on air ended when the show received the ax for a third season, reportedly due to "disagreements" over show topics.
According to Reuters, Lawmakers want to know if the show's coverage and criticism of China has anything to do with the show's cancellation. The government officials have asked Apple to speak on the issue by Dec 15, 2023. In a letter to the tech giant, the House members wrote that while Apple has the right to determine what content it deems appropriate for its platform, "the coercive tactics of a foreign power should not be directly or indirectly influencing these determinations." This effort is bipartisan, with members from both Republican and Democratic parties affiliated with the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Competition with the Chinese Communist Party.
According to Reuters, Lawmakers want to know if the show's coverage and criticism of China has anything to do with the show's cancellation. The government officials have asked Apple to speak on the issue by Dec 15, 2023. In a letter to the tech giant, the House members wrote that while Apple has the right to determine what content it deems appropriate for its platform, "the coercive tactics of a foreign power should not be directly or indirectly influencing these determinations." This effort is bipartisan, with members from both Republican and Democratic parties affiliated with the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Competition with the Chinese Communist Party.
Re:Tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that *asking* if Apple is making public affairs programming decisions based on Chinese pressure counts as overreach. Telling them they can't do that would certainly be overreach.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure that *asking* if Apple is making public affairs programming decisions based on Chinese pressure counts as overreach. Telling them they can't do that would certainly be overreach.
Telling that to a REAL person would certainly be overreach. Telling it to a corporation? I take that - probably too optimistically - as a sign that just maybe the gov is seeing some sense and re-thinking this whole 'corporate personhood' BS.
Re: (Score:2)
this whole 'corporate personhood' BS.
99% of people complaining about "corporate personhood" have no idea what it means or why.
All it means is that laws apply to both people and corporations unless they say otherwise by specifying a "natural person" or a corporation.
That's all it means, and if the default were changed, it would just make laws more verbose for no reason.
Much confusion comes from the common but mistaken belief that Citizens United was based on "corporate personhood" because the First Amendment says that "people" have freedom of e
Re:Tax dollars at work (Score:5, Interesting)
Much confusion comes from the common but mistaken belief that Citizens United was based on "corporate personhood" because the First Amendment says that "people" have freedom of expression. The First Amendment says no such thing.
The first amendment is all about freedom of expression:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If expression is not what they meant, I don't know what is. The idea of the first amendment equating any sort of expression has been upheld over and over by the SCOTUS. Citizens United was a fluke that will fix itself over time. We just have to deal with it for now. Providing campaign financing by corporations is definitely not an exercise of free speech. It's not even an exercise of free speech if done by individuals, if regulations exist to limit it. Regulations trump the first amendment all the time. Why did this one have to be different? The problem with Citizens United decision is that it DID give the illusion of personhood to corporations because it included them, blindly, in the first amendment. From the decision:
If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.
But we do that all the time, in small or sometimes not-so-small ways. For instance, freedom of assembly? Pfft. As long as you have a permit. And if you don't? The government can fine you or even jail you if you don't comply. And they can deny you a permit if they think your assembly is going to endanger people. Why couldn't the knuckleheads in the SCOTUS think the decision and its ramifications through? Now every corporation thinks they have the freedom to do anything they please as long as their lawyers can correlate the action to "an expression".
Re: (Score:3)
The first amendment is all about freedom of expression:
The First Amendment doesn't say "people" have freedom of expression. What it says is that "Congress shall make no law ...".
"No law" means "no law". It doesn't say anything about personhood.
You could argue that only people, and not corporations, have a right to assemble since "people" are mentioned in that clause, but I'm not sure what assembling would mean for a corporation. Maybe a shareholder meeting?
Citizens United was a fluke that will fix itself over time.
Perhaps. But if/when it is overturned, it should not be about "corporate personhood" but rather rejecting
Re: (Score:2)
this whole 'corporate personhood' BS.
So what problem do you think corporate personhood causes, and what would be accomplished by changing it?
Thank you for a well-reasoned and thoughtful rebuttal. It lead me to an interesting Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . It will take me a while to read that and absorb it, especially because I'm not American and didn't grow up with those things on my radar.
In answer to your question: perhaps by attacking corporate personhood I'm attacking the wrong thing. But I can't help feeling that legally speaking, rights and responsibilities for people should be entirely separate from rights and respo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that *asking* if Apple is making public affairs programming decisions based on Chinese pressure counts as overreach. Telling them they can't do that would certainly be overreach.
But congress should have more important things to be doing. Apple isn't even a really big player in the streaming content biz and it was only fairly recently that they even released their service as a third party app for non-Apple streaming hardware platforms.
Re: Tax dollars at work (Score:5, Insightful)
If the behaviour of the USAâ(TM)s largest companies is being seriously changed by a foreign powerâ(TM)s influence. Particularly when it comes to being leveraged to propagandise their output, that *certainly* is something that Congress should be interested in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except for the pesky fact that nothing about that arrangement is illegal. One of the most popular entertainment "news" networks in the USA primarily broadcasts propaganda and misinformation on the regular. If Apple's sweetheart deal to manufacture in China comes with a stipulation that they refrain from criticism of China, Apple hasn't broken any laws by following it.
Now we certainly could pass laws regulating commerce which makes Apple's relationship with China a less profitable one (such as with increas
Re: Tax dollars at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but it is Congress' job to make the laws. They need to look into what is happening, and decide if they should make a law to change it. That is their job. That is why they have inquiry powers: to help them decide if laws need to be changed.
Re: Tax dollars at work (Score:2)
Nothing being illegal would be why the police, the district attorneys, and the courts arenâ(TM)t talking to them. They arenâ(TM)t being accused of doing something illegal. Theyâ(TM)re being asked to tell congress about how china is or isnâ(TM)t influencing them so that congress can decide whether new legislation is necessary, and if so what legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a multinational company. The EU already has a lot of influence over them, e.g. the recent move to USB C, and soon to replaceable batteries. The EU will force them to open up their App Store too.
China's economy is about as big as the EU's, and growing quite rapidly. Naturally, multinational companies that choose to do business there are going to be influenced by the Chinese.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is China's relationship with Apple worth scrutinizing? Absolutely, there are plenty of good old-fashioned economic and national security justifications for doing so. But it's downright idiotic for congress to make it seem as if it was done purely as a retaliatory action against Apple for pulling a TV show, because that gives Apple the legal standing to invoke a 1A defense.
DeSantis made the same mistake because he couldn't keep from running his damn mouth.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But congress should have more important things to be doing.
Please don't over exert them. It is clear that congress is currently incapable of doing anything useful, so you may as well let them have their little show.
Dollars and Freedom. (Score:1)
I'm not sure that *asking* if Apple is making public affairs programming decisions based on Chinese pressure counts as overreach. Telling them they can't do that would certainly be overreach.
Politely informing the Government to Fuck Off within a few minutes of the request would be the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, since we citizens are still paying for a senseless inquiry. I'd suggest we shut this nonsense down now before it becomes yet another Weapon of Mass Distraction. Plenty going on right now that should be focusing voters and citizens alike to not be distracted or paying for this bullshit.
Jon may not like the decision, but I'll bet he at least respects Apples Freedom to do so
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Canadian speaking here. So what you are saying the US government telling Apple they can't cancel a show due to foreign interference is overreach. But a foreign communist government telling Apple they have to cancel the show is not overreach? And sure CCP didn't say "cancel the show". But more like "That is a ton of money you are making here in China... it would be a shame if something happened to that..."
Here in my country there is overwhelming evidence that the CCP influenced our election to the point tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tax dollars at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Fun fact: first amendment has nothing to do with whether a company chooses to air its programming.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: first amendment has nothing to do with whether a company chooses to air its programming.
Indeed. The First Amendment is only one sentence, but it is surprising how many Americans have never read it, yet publicly comment on what it means.
"Congress shall make no law ..."
So what about "not making laws" gives the government the authority to tell Apple what to stream?
Re: Tax dollars at work (Score:2)
The possibility of American corporations interfering with journalistic productions that were traditionally firewalled from the rest of the business is very much a legitimate concern of Government. It's both an anti-trust issue and a First Amendment one.
"Journalistic productions"? You can't call Jon Stewart's show the press or Jon Stewart a journalist with a straight face even on the internet, it's not and he isn't, everyone knows that. That show is NOT what is traditionally firewalled from the rest of a business.
Anti-trust? Explain how Apple and who else owns or controls even a two digit percentage of the press or anything pretending to be the press. They're abusing their dominant position in what to ... Colluding with ... who? How does that make any sens
Re:Tax dollars at work (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is under no obligation to pay Stewart to produce a show. At best all this tells you is that Apple will cave to a certain amount of pressure and that Stewart has more integrity than whatever that level of pressure is. Now that Apple doesn't have him under contract he's still free to enter into contract with other companies or to even go his own route. Unless he gets un-personed enough that no one will touch him. But it's not like you care about any of those people or care if journalistic productions were interfered with for Stormfront or any other similar group of assholes that are as unpopular as can be.
If Apple wants to kiss China's ass that's their own business and if you don't like it it's equally your right not to pay them a dime for anything. You just slit your own throat by demanding that they must associate with someone because the same demands can be placed upon you. Maybe you think you're crusading for justice, but I doubt you'd like it if the same charges were levied against you. If you think you can make speech freer by constraint you're a damned fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple wants to kiss China's ass that's their own business
Apple is an American corporation, which means it's a creation of American law, and ultimately subject to that law.
And the American law is subject to the constitution, of which the first amendment says that the government has no say in their decisions on what to broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is an American corporation, which means it's a creation of American law, and ultimately subject to that law. That law will very probably have things to say about kissing the ass of hostile foreign States.
It does not have anything to say about it. You're absolutely right, American companies must follow American laws. But you're making up laws which don't exist. A company is free to do what they want to appease other countries within limits of specific restrictions placed on them, and there's no restriction on appeasing China just because *you* label them a "hostile foreign State" (a label which the government has not put on China in any legal capacity).
The American government maintains a highly specific list
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh absolutely. My point was congress can run a circus of asking pointless questions all they want. But ultimately if Apple answered: "We want to kiss China's arse". Well congress can go pound sand if they don't like the answer. Apple gets to answer questions, but there's literally no laws they have broken regardless of the answer.
I didn't say anything is problematic, other than you thinking China is a "hostile foreign State" and that any special rules apply to appeasing them. That is problematic.
Ultimately
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No laws are broken, American or otherwise.
It is Congress' job to make the laws. If they felt it was necessary they could outlaw doing business with China completely. They could do nothing. They could make laws anywhere in between -perhaps something regulating business relationships involving China... But most probably: nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is an Irish company, for tax purposes. Apple has been censoring and providing user data to the government in China for over a decade.
If it's about principles, then this is just the latest in a long line of them that Apple has violated. Being Irish has allowed them to steal tax money from you for a very long time, surely far more egregious than simply cancelling a TV show.
Re: (Score:2)
Government overreach much?
The possibility of American corporations interfering with journalistic productions that were traditionally firewalled from the rest of the business is very much a legitimate concern of Government.
I can see why they should be interested. However, they should be ready for an answer "we can run our business the way we want, and don't have to answer to you".
It's both an anti-trust issue and a First Amendment one.
Neither. Not antitrust unless they colluded with other streaming companies, because they are not a dominant player in the industry. The first amendment says that they are allowed to broadcast or not broadcast what they want, with the government having no say in their decision.
....
Re:Tax dollars at work (Score:4, Insightful)
National defense is a legitimate Federal interest. If we have a hostile foreign power effectively making laws and regulations in the U.S., even through a corporate shill, that's an issue of national sovereignty. Don't you think a few questions might be in order, at least to see if that's actually what is happening?
Re: (Score:3)
If we have a hostile foreign power effectively making laws and regulations in the U.S., even through a corporate shill, that's an issue of national sovereignty.
With the vast majority of dark money not even being disclosed to the federal election commission I think that ship has sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I say "load all torpedo tubes!"
Re: (Score:2)
And what's stopping you from getting your own torpedoes and tubes and doing the work yourself with others who share your viewpoint?
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, National Defense is indeed a legitimate Federal interest...
But what can they do about this situation without violating their own laws?
They created an environment where propaganda can be more effective and are now complaining that someone other than them is using it. Here, let me play the worlds smallest violin for them.
(going for the quick win is always a loss and that is what they have done, is lost, by creating an environment where propaganda is strong for their own benefit)
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, polititians don't deserve much sympathy here. But what of the other >300M in the U.S. don't we deserve to not be subjects of two governments at the same time? I don't want to do what the silly ol' bear tells me.
Re: (Score:2)
But what of the other >300M in the U.S. don't we deserve to not be subjects of two governments at the same time?
We don't 'deserve' anything. We are trying to be treated with respect and dignity; however, the personnel who seem to have seized power don't think we have earned it, so we do not get it. Those same personnel are the ones who created this situation.
TL;DR, we do not matter and what we want is irrelevant. We will get get cake (plaster) to eat and we will enjoy it or die. (I am part of the dying group, good luck to the rest of you)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound more like the group saying it's all plaster all the time so eat up and ridicule anyone offering even a small amount of non-plaster based cake.
Personally, I'll be in the group that enjoys the few times it's not plaster.
Yes, the congress critters calling out Apple are far from clean handed, but they can at least be used to git rid of competing propaganda and censorship. Perhaps we can play them off of one another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. They are facilitating China and Xi (Winnie the Pooh) regulating what Americans are allowed to watch. You could even argue that they are applying China's social credit system to an American living in the U.S. on the behalf of China. Or at least the facts as known smell strongly of all of that. It seems worth investigating at least, and if true, it should be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently congress. It's right there in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
National defense is a legitimate Federal interest. If we have a hostile foreign power effectively making laws and regulations in the U.S., even through a corporate shill, that's an issue of national sovereignty. Don't you think a few questions might be in order, at least to see if that's actually what is happening?
Private wealth makes most of our laws and regulations now, and its intentions are very often hostile to democracy, with or without the involvement of a foreign power.
And I agree - it is a matter of national sovereignty, it deserves discussion. It's just a shame China has to be involved for us to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed about private wealth. That is also a problem that needs addressing. Unfortunately, Congress is far less likely to address that one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is very much a monopoly issue. Think of it as follows. You have a company that controls the platform. Then they create a media platform where Apple is a preferred media player. After all trying to get Apple TV working well on non Apple devices is a non-starter. It is kinda there, but it is really is just there for show. Now with one of these shows they create is something that could be considered as comedy journalism.
Thus comes the question are they allowed to use their platform which dominates as a cens
Re: (Score:3)
It is very much a monopoly issue.
AppleTV a monopoly? That's a good one!
With Black Friday coming up I'll be sure to look for a deal on one of the many smart TVs with built-in AppleTV functionality. /s
Re: Tax dollars at work (Score:2)
I agree, Apple is over stepping their monopoly. Why is apple tv the only platform on my Amazon fire tv?
All this nonsense aside. I want Congress to mandate more Ted Lasso over John Stewert.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Congress.
apple better open up the app store befor they forc (Score:2)
apple better open up the app store before they are forced to allow side loading
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple's business plan falls apart without China as a manufacturing partner. South Park and Paramount have basically no vested interest there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, I don't think you're necessarily wrong to be angry about this but the thought that any other countries can fill the gap any time soon without Apple taking a big dent in revenue sounds like, at best, wishful thinking. I'm sure they're thinking about and maybe even paying lip service to the idea in certain European and South American circles, but having any concrete plans, that I'd doubt. My assumption here is they are playing it "safe" (as they see it) by pandering to China as hard as they can for as lon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an American, AAPL shareholder and Apple consumer, I say "fuck Congress" on this one. Seriously mean...just fuck them.
Good for Apple for making its decisions without regard to whether America or its govt like them.
Oh, and fuck Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you should mention South Park, because it has been subject to censorship a few times. Mostly due to threats from Islamic extremists, IIRC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now subpoena Jon Stewart, put him under oath, and let him tell his side of the story.
To what end? Jon Stewart comes out and says something something banned because Winnie-the-Pooh asked Apple to, and then what? What do you hope to do with your information? Are you willing to tear up the First Amendment to force Apple to carry programming that they don't *want to* - for whatever reason they may choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And do what? Again. What are you hoping to achieve other than wasting everyone's time? That's all this ultimately boils down to.
Remember what the USA stands for. (Score:2)
What the actual fuck Cupertino?
What the actual fuck is the argument against an American corporation making a business decision to remove an American citizens content from their platform, within the United States of America?
Jon may not like the decision. Probably hates it in fact. But he should respect their right to do so. If Free Speech isn't so free for most because consequences, then perhaps we should remember that Freedom extends to an American corporation too. The actual fuck here will be discussed in the next quarterly earnings
Re: (Score:2)
If Free Speech isn't so free for most because consequences, then perhaps we should remember that Freedom extends to an American corporation too.
A corporation is a legal fiction. Words on a page. They never should have had any rights, period. Humans have rights, corporations are specifically legal fictions created to separate shareholders from responsibility for the actions they are profiting from. Humans need rights to free speech, Corporations do not. The one and only reason Corporations were given rights was so that they could make campaign contributions, and that has done direct damage to democracy. Giving rights to corporations is literally fas
Re: (Score:2)
If Free Speech isn't so free for most because consequences, then perhaps we should remember that Freedom extends to an American corporation too.
A corporation is a legal fiction. Words on a page. They never should have had any rights, period. Humans have rights, corporations are specifically legal fictions created to separate shareholders from responsibility for the actions they are profiting from. Humans need rights to free speech, Corporations do not. The one and only reason Corporations were given rights was so that they could make campaign contributions, and that has done direct damage to democracy. Giving rights to corporations is literally fascism.
Agreed, and a hell of a way to sum up just how far we've fallen.
I was going to reiterate and clarify that corporations deal with the consequences of their speech via lost profits, but then I remembered Too Big To Fail setting legal precedent for Greed to abuse by socializing utter failure while Corruption capitalizes on executive bone-us bailouts funded by victim citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason younger Americans all buy iPhones, and that is unlikely to change. Their home market is safe and they probably have those customers locked into their ecosystem for life. Problem is the market is saturated and not growing.
On the other hand, the Chinese government just banned employees from using iPhones for official business, due to security concerns - basically retaliation for US sanctions on Huawei, questionable as iPhone security is. China is a huge and growing market for Apple, so they ar
Re: (Score:2)
Does Winnie-the-Pooh have compromising photographs of Tim Cook?
China has over 3 times as many potential consumers. American consumers are skint, so, who cares about that market except as an afterthought to where the real money will come from.The USA is wearing no clothes and nobody seems to acknowledge it.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are it'll be like "We submitted some scripts to Apple, and Apple rejected a few of them, wanting changes".
And now, as we know it, Jon refused to alter the scripts and cancelled the show. Or maybe Apple cancelled the show. Eithe
Oh really? (Score:2)
while Apple has the right to determine what content it deems appropriate for its platform, "the coercive tactics of a foreign power should not be directly or indirectly influencing these determinations."
So members of the Republican-controlled House want to investigate if a company was coerced by a government in making its programming choices. Funny thing about that . . . [imgur.com]
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
Is your argument that Congress shouldn't ask questions about that earlier incident?
Or is your argument that it's okay when the White House censors media [nytimes.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
So members of the Republican-controlled House want to investigate if a company was coerced by a government in making its programming choices. Funny thing about that . . . [imgur.com]
I hate dragging up the Disney thing in Florida yet again, but that pretty much fits too. Seems like it's only a problem worthy of Congress's attention when the government entity accused of meddling with a media company (because that government entity didn't like something the media company put out) happens to be named "China".
Put down your pitchforks. (Score:2)
Congress is free to ask whatever questions they want. It's not necessarily government overreach and/or harassing corporations for not towing the political party line. It's about making sure that some foreign entity isn't exploiting loopholes in US trade, law, or financial influence to undemocratically undermine actual freedom of speech and silence critics.
Like, if a US newspaper publishes a scathing expose on Saudi business dealings, and those Saudis sue that newspaper for whatever junk, made-up damages the
Fixed that for you (Score:2)
"the coercive tactics of a domestic or foreign power should not be directly or indirectly influencing these determinations."
Why are we ignoring the ratings? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Why are we ignoring the ratings? (Score:2)
Allegedly is the key word.
Apparently people are too young to remember McCarthyism. Ironically, this isnâ(TM)t just an example of McCarthyism - this is a full on Red Scare all over again.
There are a lot of parallels to the political language and tactics that are reminiscent of the Cold War. Perhaps we really arenâ(TM)t out of the 1950â(TM)s yetâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why are we ignoring the ratings? (Score:2)
And even more amusingly, the House Committee that is making this request is chaired by none other than a politician from Wisconsin. History really doth repeat itself, 70 years later!
How about if NATO countries' media... (Score:2)
Congress has other things to worry about... (Score:2)
Of course they're asking about this... (Score:2)
...clearly everything is so great in the Utopian States of America that THIS is what our FEDERAL lawmakers should be spending their time working on.
Jesus fucking christ.
Why even bother asking the question? (Score:2)
We've seen from past hearings that witnesses (Jack Dorsey, looking at you) can just bold face lie through their teeth and not a god damn thing will happen.
I can't even begin recalling how many witnesses I've watch on CSPAN filibuster the questions by running out the time with irrelevant and unrelated non sequitur responses. There is no point to having hearings, or asking questions to an oppositional witness who does not wish to divulge information without some means
This Just In (Score:2)
the show received the ax for a third season
Nobody at engadget can spell "axe"