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."
Wrong, it does not answer the question. And you did not answer my question, so I will: It is not censorship when someone refuses to publish someone else's work. Otherwise, the word censorship becomes meaningless. To equate people suffering under oppressive regimes, who truly are censored, with some developer who can't get his app published by Apple, is monstrously insulting to all people who have suffered under such regimes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
THIS IS NOT NEWS
Fine. Is it censorship if EA choose not to publish my game? Is it censorship if a Warner Music refuses to publish my music? Is it censorship if the Penguin Group refuses to publish my book? It would be ridiculous to claim so just as it's ridiculous to claim that this is censorship.
Why did they choose not to publish it? It might be censorship, good business sense, timing, or a whole host of reasons. Were they ready to publish it until they discovered the author is black, for example? Or perhaps the CEO decided that it wasn't 'religious' enough, and vetoed it by fiat? These would, rightly, be called 'censorship'.
Censorship is often meant as 'blocking access to material to further an agenda, especially when against the desires of the public'.
It could be a colloquial use of the word, but it does get used that way whether it tracks with you or not.
Ah, I see. We're reading two different stories, then. Here's what I've been discussing:
Dear Mr. Fiore,
Thank you for submitting NewsToons to the App Store. We’ve reviewed NewsToons and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains content that ridicules public figures and is in violation of Section 3.3.14 from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which states:
“Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.” Examples of such content have been attached for your reference.
If you believe that you can make the necessary changes so that NewsToons does not violate the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, we encourage you to do so and resubmit it for review.
Regards,
iPhone Developer Program
I guess it answers the question from that old ad. Why won't 1984 be like 1984? Because Apple is really, really bad at deadlines...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Its been in the dev agreement from day one that apps like this are forbidden. Maybe if he'd have actually read the agreement, he would know that.
It does not answer the question, it describes the duties of a censor or defines the verb to censor. You specified a particular application of the verb and were asked if that application could be used in every case of a similar denial. Please answer the question as asked.
Why bother