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.
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
Any sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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.
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."
You are missing the central point: This doesn't even require reading TFA, just the summary. Previous issues of Saga had as graphic or more so heterosexual situations. Yet they were not banned, nor have they been banned. Saga 1-11 is still available. So the problem here is that heterosexual and gay are being treated differently.
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
I'd be curious to see the examples they were talking about. I'd say in general that male genitalia are the most pornographic body part of either gender, and that images involving men are generally considered more pornographic than those involving women, ie two women is less pornographic than a mixed pair, which is less pornographic than two guys. Basically I'm saying it's not clear that it's discrimination at work so much as different standards as to what constitutes pornography.
I stole this Sig
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
No, but what is worthy of nerd rage is when a company discriminates and prohibits depictions of gay activities when it allows depictions of straight activities. And the "rage" is not so much over the discrimination itself, but over Apple's hypocrisy and pretense of being a liberal and modern organization.
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.
Apple is a company that decided their business structure and standards, long damn ago.
If you haven't clued in from the very beginning, with 1 mouse button and no console, they think you are TOO DAMN STUPID to make choices for yourself.
This has been reflected in their products, software and hardware from day one. So, no surprises here.
Since they assign themselves guardianship over their faithful devotees( the stupid of the world, by their vision) Apple wouldn't want that image to fall into the hand of some kid who might get the idea " hey , maybe I can talk Billy into putting mine in his mouth, that would feel neater than whackin' it myself" and then decide arbitrarily that it must mean he is gay and summarily embrace the lifestyle ,erroneously. Nope, Apple is there to protect everyone from themselves, just like a Repubmocrat in Federal office. They know better than YOU, after all. Which is why they have such a huge following. There is a demographic of people out there, that don't like to think for themselves in real life, are willing to let others authoritate their will, and be parented in a strange Freudian sense, by others. ( This may also explain the last century of Repubmocrat tyranny, as well)
So what is all the surprise and silly noises about? This is not outside the historical scope of Apple.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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
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?