Slashdot Mirror
Apple Bans Sale of Comic Book On All iOS Apps Over Gay Sex Images - Update
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.
Can't have that at Apple, can we?
So the appropriate response to being censored now is to roll over? No fight whatsoever?
"We are Samurai, the Keyboard...Cowboys"
I love bashing Apple over their walled garden as much as any other Slashdotter (well, aside from shills like BasilBrush), but in this case, what is the evidence that this was banned specifically over gay sex, and not just because that particular reviewer was more uptight than others in similar cases? Apple reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent.
Why are we surprised about this and why is this even news worthy?
"it would be inappropriate for us to tell another company how to run its business" - but they are ok with Apple telling them how to run theirs!
every hipster's head just exploded
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality
Are we "thinking different" enough yet?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The two first world obsessions, gay rights and apple products collide in a mellow dramatic twist of fate! A comic book that no one has ever read becomes front page news! Millions of people get to read the words " oral sex appearing on the computer monitor that serves as the head of one of the characters" in a news article. A heroic battle of a billion tweets erupts and the most important rights issue of our time, whether you can read an obscure comic books with allusions to gay sex on your mobile phone becomes, for 15 minutes, on the top of the minds of millions of self-absorbed ennui filled smart-phone diddling hipsters.
that you can't get porn on iPhones/iPads.
Is gay porn somehow different and worthy of new nerd rage?
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 so as well. But stick to the issue at hand: Apple has decided to limit information flow from its developers and content providers to its customers. Don't like it? Fine. Don't do business with them, take them to task for doing business the way they do, stand in front of HQ with rainbow signs, do business directly with the content providers, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Except that, as noted in even TFS, they haven't for similar non-gay sexual depictions sold through the same venues.
That's me and my sister with a strap-on!
Seriously, if the images are postage-stamp-size, how can you tell it's NOT a man and a woman-who-looks-like-a-man-with-a-strap-on? Is the Retina display really that good?
So, what is this faux outrage we are being presented with? (And I think the ban on porn in general is childish)
Except that for previous even more graphic heterosexual content in the same comic, they didn't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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 Amazon that sells wierdonium cream. It helps.
I did earlier today and I doubt this has anything to do with "explicit gay sex imagery" vs. just "explicit sex imagery". One of the two images shows multiple penises ejaculating on someone's face. I doubt that making the face look more feminine instead of masculine would have had much influence on changing Apple's decision. I'm only commenting on this because the news outlets have been turning this into a "Apple banning gay expression" story instead of a more accurate "Apple bans sexually explicit imagery as it always has, even though something else bad happened to sneak through their process once upon a time earlier" story. Does the online community really believe that Apple, a company that has always been clear in its support of equality of all lifestyles, and a company run by a gay male CEO, is persecuting some comic because of a specifically gay component, rather than just an excessively sexual component?
a mellow dramatic twist of fate
Wow! Both mellow and dramatic!
Getting tired of the hype, stories, and fanboyism everyday.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Apple for obvious reasons is sensitive to gay issues. Naturally. Wink wink.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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.
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.
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 claims that there are 105 countries whose gross domestic product is smaller than Apple Inc.'s revenue of $46 billion per year.
just because you bought it, doesn't mean you own it
and was giddy for a moment
You would not find this at any reputable retailer either. How could anyone respond with anything but meh?
Does anyone have a link to, or description of the "even more graphic heterosexual content"? I saw the banned gay content today, and it's hard to imagine many things which could be significantly more graphic, heterosexual or otherwise.
intentionally left blank
The issue is that Apple didn't have any problems with the extensive heterosexual sex in previous issues which on the whole were more graphic and more extensive. They also had no problem with depictions of drug use and child prostitution, all things that have been depicted in the comic previously. It wasn't until it depicted a man receiving oral stimulation from another man that they decided it was "inappropriate."
bingo.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Woah, I'd LOVE to have a chat with you some time.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
with Apple taking its DHS/TSA responsibilities so seriously.
I, for one, welcome our making the choice for us overlords.
Oh, by the way, Its a cookbook!
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
RTFA. Apple let plenty of heterosexual sex pass.
Apparently, the influence of the reality distortion field still hasn't worn off.
Or, what often happens is that people don't complain until it's "gay", then Apple responds to the first complaint of "porn". The timing is based on readership, not Apple, in most cases.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Nobody filed a complain previously so Apple had no reason to investigate.
This time somebody filed a complaint and Apple investigated. With luck they'll investigate past issues and ban them too. (somewhat sarcastic).
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 absolutely logical thing that says you are not old enough to booze but old enough to have your brains blown out for god and country.
Still better than outright arbitrary removal.
Apple is only relyable when it comes to fart apps and cow-clickers.
20 minutes into the future
Only for sensationalism. Sad thing to do.
This doesn't help the gay agenda, pretending that this is discrimination against homosexuality, when it is clearly just a violation of the "no porn" policy.
This isn't a "gay rights" issue. It's about pointing out Apple's hypocrisy. The way this is playing out, they spent their money on a surefire PR stunt to get gay customers, and now they're showing where they really stand by drawing the line at the gay sex act.
It's highly dubious to claim that they just so happened to finally vet this comic at the same time it was depicting a gay sex act. It's more likely that someone complained about the depiction of a gay sex act. And they pulled it. Hardly noble behavior.
You might take a look at This Film Is Not Yet Rated. 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
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You sound like someone who just found out about Apple's policies. Why do you sound so emotional about this? It's been this way for years.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's possible
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The question is not if Apple is allowed to censor in their appstore, the question is if they should. It would be a minor thing for Apple to have an 18+ part if their store. However, they refuse to do that. To make matters worse, if you have big bucks, the rules don't apply to you. Playboy is allowed in the store even though Apple allows no nude pictures. They kicked out 500px and ISO500 because those companies have no money to engage big lawyers. The whole excuse of "this is an Apple store so Apple decides what goes in there" might work if there were alternatives but outside Cydia there are none. Fortunately Android is a good alternative. Apple is driving away customers and developers every time they get out their banhammer. That and the fact that they stopped innovating will kill them in the long run.
Probably because of the trouser snake rather than homo-phobe. That seems to be the limit. As primary genitalia go, guys are just kind of "out there". Girls' are a bit more under-stated and socially acceptable. My suspicion is that it's indirectly linked to the second class social state of women. Since "male" taste dominates and most men don't want to see other men's junk, the man-censor hammer falls.
Imagine a world where newsstand magazine covers depicted men instead of women on all the covers, in the same (relative) poses and state of dress...
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 was token at best and does not compare to anti-gay censorship on one of the world's largest content distribution forms.
Please help metamoderate.
This has nothing to do with whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. It has to do with the fact that the store doesn't allow pornographic material of any kind.
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.
Sure. It's still easier to believe that some author is trying to get attention by making a scene, rather than Apple is secretly homophobic and tried to hide it by donating to pro-gay causes, which seems to be what you're implying, and doesn't make much sense.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
that Apple is for faggots.
No. I know Apple's policies. That's why I don't buy them.
...unless you give them halberds. Then they at least try.
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.
20 minutes into the future
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
So what we're basically saying is that Apple the company that essentially takes it's name and logo from the suicide method of a famous homosexual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing although Apple deny this. What we're saying is that they are homophobes?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps Apple simply didn't get any complaints until the issue involving gay sex...
It was banned before being released on the App Store.
Man, stop with the bullshit urban myths already.
I can't imagine how thankful the publishers, as well as Fiona Staples and probably other comics artists that incorporate gay sex in their publications, are to Apple. I've never heard of them or their comics before, but now I have, thanks to Apple. But this really is just the oldest PR stunt in the book. Find some high profile entity and trigger an overly conservative/liberal response from them, get your attention on nationwide media and... ka-ching! ka-ching! ka-ching! Hey, wha.. wasn't that Barbara Streisand just there?
The solution is to file a complaint about each and every app containing even the slightest hint of sexuality. Or something other that's on the censorship list. That way only the most dull apps make it to the consumer. Let's see how well that goes for Apple.
But it could be a bit of a mouthful.
Ever heard the phrase "Laying down the law"?
Apple ARE legislating. Their laws (rules) are legislating morality as much as Walmart does or government does. And, given that they're trying to make violating ToS a criminal act, they are wanting their rules to be governmental law.
And if a powerful private individual calls you out and puts the cops on you, then they are using the government to put the guns on you, but THEY are the ones doing it as much or more than any government.
Dimitry Skylarov was sic'd on to the government by a private corporation.
Aaron Shwartz was sic'd on to the government by a private corporation.
Megaupload was sic'd on to the government by a different government who were being pushed to do so by a private corporation.
And if you got rid of the police and armed forces of the government to remove this option, they'd go to "private armies" to do it. See debt collectors.
Except that doesn't factor in the previous 11 issues that are still available and contain more explicit non-gay material. Nice try Apple apologist, keep drinking that kool-aid.
Here ya go:
http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/bkv3.jpg
is "The entity with a monopoly on deadly force". So in Disneyworld, Disney might be considered the government.
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.
Careful, you are disturbing his RDF and the source to replenish it is gone.
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.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
but another reason to never get an iPhone/iPad
I am the one who decides what I can get on my device NOT CRApple...
Apple the notoriously gay unfriendly company has an anti-gay agenda?!
From the Wiki
Presumably meaning as a homage, but this latest story gives the exchange a much more chilling possible meaning.
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.
They probably didn't recognize the heterosexual images.
So, can I still go to Comixology.com and buy and then download it to my iPad? Is sale or availability being blocked?
Pornography is banned in the app store. If other images got through before, then they were simply overlooked. That's no reason not to uphold the rules now.
If you're attempting to imply there's institutional homophobia at Apple, then you've got a bit of a problem, what with their history of publicly supporting gay issues. Such as this recently.
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/02/27/apple-joins-the-intel-facebook-microsoft-in-supporting-the-legalization-of-gay-marriage-in-the-us/
Still don't let the facts get in the way of your bigotry (against Apple).
Have you seen the images? Best not to go on hearsay.
Apple let plenty of heterosexual sex pass.
You realize that Apple held up approval of the Playboy app until Hefner's company agreed to strip the nude pictures out of it, right? You download that app and you really are reading the magazine just for the articles. So there's evidence that Apple is trying to enforce the rules in cases of heterosexual sex too. Stop attributing malice where it's obvious stuff has just fallen through the cracks.
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."
You do know that Tim Cook is in fact gay, right? Seriously; go look it up.
That doesn't mean that there aren't some content reviewers at Apple that are banning gay content where equivalent hetero content wouldn't be banned, but you're an idiot if you think that Apple as a company is anti-gay.
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 product as it may be too easy for them to get filth on. So the parents will not give them such a tool.
If American culture changes its views on what is acceptable, so will Apple change its policies. The only Agenda apple wants is to make a boat load of money.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
oh no wait, also in China and most Middle Eastern countries.
if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants
It amazes me to this day how much of a hardon you have for Apple.
And I thought fags were more likely to be Apple fans.
I will enjoy seeing how the fanbois come out to defend this one.
I looked it up and it's available on iBooks.
Well I think the artists and writers of the comic would argue that what they produce is not pornography, and while you can pretend that the other issues were simply overlooked, that's a little hard to believe considering the amount of attention this is now getting and how quickly issue 12 was banned (before it was even released). The other issues have not been removed, and believe me the sex is not hidden away; one of the issues opens with an extremely graphic sex scene. I don't have any apple bigotry, I don't care one way or another. And Apple may finally be coming around to supporting gay marriage now that the winds have changed. The fact remains that they classify gay sex in a comic book as pornography and do not classify heterosexual sex in a comic book as pornography. You can claim it is an oversight all you want, but I think most people find that very hard to believe. If it was an oversight, why has Apple not removed the other issues before this one as well, since those depictions of sex were, as I mentioned, far more extensive and explicit? If they wish to act consistently, then they either have to take every issue off their market or return issue 12.
Well I think the artists and writers of the comic would argue that what they produce is not pornography
And they're probably right. But that particular image is pornographic.
I don't care one way or another. And Apple may finally be coming around to supporting gay marriage now that the winds have changed.
It sounds like you care, because you're taking every opportunity to distort this. Apple isn't coming around now. Apple has always been a supporter of gay rights, at whatever level they were currently being pushed. You can find examples throughout their history of it. If you don't care about that, and are attacking Apple anyway, then obviously your motives are not about gay rights.
How many complaints were received about those individual issues? How many about the issue in question?
Learn to love Alaska
It's been updated; stay classy slashdot.
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?
They took their name and logo from Apple Records, because Steve Jobs was a Beatles fan. Apple Records sued them over it, and as part of the settlement, Apple Computer promised not to intrude on the music business. Of course, they later did... leading to a second lawsuit.
The comic may be generally disgusting. This issue was still worse than the rest.
Apple hasn't [used the full might of its legal department against] those who enable jailbreaking. Yet.
And I understand that you haven't raped any children. Yet.
I hereby announce that I promise to never have sexual relations with a minor. Can Apple make an analogous promise about how it will deal with people who release new iOS jailbreaks?
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
Given the predilection of some to complain about Apple's single button mice, the actual timeframe of such complaints is "about a decade".
Actually though it's quite helpful, because anyone who still complains about it after today is obviously deranged, and we can just make fun of them wantonly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funny how things "fall through the cracks" more for straight stuff than for gay stuff. Besides, the whole thing shows how prudish Apple is in general. They can't even be bothered to implement a rating system, and instead reduce everything to the level of a four year old.
278 posts, and not a single retraction two days after it comes out that Apple was innocent in this case. In fact, a few posts still blaming Apple for things it didn't do after that fact was established.
Sure a lot of what might charitably be called wild acusations and a whole lot of declaiming on facts that were anything but.
And they say History is written by the winners? Not these days. It's not-written, and it's the screechers with personal agendas and half-cocked opinions that only look like facts if you squint a lot and ignore their smell are what's remembered.
Have to wait another day to scream "homophobic" and get your panties in a bunch. Ouch! Seeing all the true colors of some of the drones who lurk on /. *was* kind of entertaining.
I guess that for many, sadly, their lives must be really boring, enough that they seem to be perpetually trying to imagine somebody---anybody, even a corporation---really gives a shit about who or what they fuck and suck.
Sorry: in general, nobody cares anymore.
But, uh, enjoy your windmill jousting.
I'm a troll and this is flame bait; don't bother responding and feel free to ignore me.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
The actual act in the hetero image is more disturbing and is larger, but the image shows no actual genitalia, male or female.