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"
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
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.
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
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.
who would have thought something could be too gay for apple?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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."
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.
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.
I think they could win a lawsuit against Apple. Apple blocked direct sales through the app, but still sells it themselves. They are abusing their "monopoly" in the market to block access through a 3rd party while allowing it through theirs. If it's so objectionable it must be removed from the marketplace, why did they remove it from everywhere in the market place they don't own, but still allow it on the marketplace the one place Apple does own?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
That's the problem with setting up that walled garden, since you restrict the "bad elements", whatever you let in, you become responsible for their actions.
Can't have one without the other.
Let the data-loss, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying lawsuits commence....
What's Apple's direct GDP contribution? That's the actual apples to apples comparison after all. I imagine it's much closer to their net income than their revenue. That drops their GDP contribution by almost a factor of four. I'd say it contributes about as much GDP as Uruguay did in 2012. That's nice, but that's not a large country.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
And I almost didn't post it, as it's clear in TFA that Apple pulled it from the in-app purchases, but didn't block the app from playing it (allowing it to be bought 3-rd party and sync'd with the app), nor blocked access to the content, as it could be bought from the Apple iBookstore (though I have no idea if content bought through iBookstore can be played on other apps). So if it's easily buyable, but blocked at the same time, what did they do any why? Well, Apple will claim it's not anti-competitive because you can buy it through the 3-rd party web site and sync it with your app. Apple also didn't advertise it was available on iBookstore, they just didn't pull it from there. So in this case Apple may be right, but if Apple is operating under two sets of rules for apps, one for other's and a different one for Apple Apps, that is anti-competitive by definition. Though if that was sufficient to win in court, one of the other affected apps would have complained by now, instead affected companies like Google decided that rather than fight, they would work with Apple.
Learn to love Alaska
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?