Slashdot Mirror
Apple Blocks Cartoonist From App Store
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."
Because Apple has neither a monopoly on desktop computers nor on smart phones? And thus can not be guilty of "monopolistic" behavior?
Where did you read "freedom of speech" in TFA? I don't recall typing that....
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.
This ain't rocket surgery.
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:
The media organisation Apple's action fits the definition like a glove.
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.
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...