The iPad

[Rico]

Like I said earlier - every company censors.  Look at TV, movies, etc.  Violence is pretty raw these days, but sex - nope.  For example, an R rated movie on TV will be censored but that doesn't make me stop watching FOX, or ABC, etc.  I just watch those types of movies either at the theater or Netflix or another way.  Language standards have changed too overtime.  I get what you are saying Chris, but all places do this to some degree.  Sadly, that's just the way it works.  There are certainly other ways to view these comics, just not on an iPad.  Just like certain stuff isn't shown on TV.  Same thing.

[Jobydrone]

As far as I can tell, the comics app that I use (cloudreader) is completely open and as long as you have purchased or otherwise obtained a digital file in a format that is supported by the iPad, you can put it on the device and view it.  I think the Comixology app has a digital store that this particular book was "banned" from.  I have a hard time supporting censorship of any kind as well, but acknowledge the arguments that everyone has made about the rights of Apple to control what is available to be purchased through their distribution system.  If this was a product that advocated something patently offensive to all (use your imagination I have no desire to offend sensibilities here) then we would most likely be less apt to complain.  It's hard to decide what's the right move here.  If Apple started making demands of Netflix, for example, forcing them to take down or remove certain content because it didn't fit within Apple's standards of appropriateness, then I would probably react with anger and frustration as well.  Fortunately, we still live in a society where there's a free market, with many options available for consuming media and entertainment, and Apple isn't (yet) the only source for this type of material.

Of course Just X and everyone else has the equal right to express their disdain and vote with their checkbooks...I believe he has said elsewhere in this thread that this product is not for him anyway.  For me the iPad is open enough of a platform that I can watch or read absolutely anything and everything I want (except Flash heh,) whether I buy it from the Apple store, through an app, or through some other source.  I won't be sending mine back in protest.

[X]

Is there really a difference?

Yes. Apple doesn't care what content you look at on the internet, however as a business they need to be aware of the content they tacitly support via there applications. They have a corporate image and reputation which is at their discretion to promote and manage.

Let's see.

They allow comics with couples cuddling? Check. That seems to be something within their standards.

Gay couples cuddling? Nope.

So if comics with cuddling is allowed and comics with gay cuddling isn't allowed, that tells me that the problem is with the gay and not the cuddling. I'm not suggesting that gay is against their rules, but without knowing their secret standards, it looks that way.

Amazon did something similar when they removed the GLT books a few months ago (And some books that weren't) and claimed that it was due to computer error.

[X]

Like I said earlier - every company censors.  Look at TV, movies, etc.  Violence is pretty raw these days, but sex - nope.  For example, an R rated movie on TV will be censored but that doesn't make me stop watching FOX, or ABC, etc.  I just watch those types of movies either at the theater or Netflix or another way.  Language standards have changed too overtime.  I get what you are saying Chris, but all places do this to some degree.  Sadly, that's just the way it works.  There are certainly other ways to view these comics, just not on an iPad.  Just like certain stuff isn't shown on TV.  Same thing.

I completely agree that every company has a right to censor. I'm just not comfortable with them targeting specific lifestyles to censor. That's what I don't agree with.

[Bryancd]

So you are making both a judgement call about the content and then making assumptions about their motives? I see...  :ohwell

[Geekyfanboy]

I completely agree that every company has a right to censor. I'm just not comfortable with them targeting specific lifestyles to censor. That's what I don't agree with.

Thanks buddy for the support.

If this comic app banned/censored any comic books that had black people in them.. folks would be up in arms.. because it's a "gay" think it's okay, they have to right to sell/distribute what they want.

[X]

So you are making both a judgement call about the content and then making assumptions about their motives? I see...  :ohwell

Did you read the article at all? Read it then get back to me.

[Bryancd]

So you are making both a judgement call about the content and then making assumptions about their motives? I see...  :ohwell

Did you read the article at all? Read it then get back to me.

I did, a few times, and I feel the author is drawing some very specific conclusion NOT based on any real understanding as to why the action was taken and neither do you. I assume you also don't shop at Amazon or WalMart as their policies towards content are very well known.

[X]

So you are making both a judgement call about the content and then making assumptions about their motives? I see...  :ohwell

Did you read the article at all? Read it then get back to me.

I did, a few times, and I feel the author is drawing some very specific conclusion NOT based on any real understanding as to why the action was taken and neither do you. I assume you also don't shop at Amazon or WalMart as their policies towards content are very well known.

Yep, you assume correctly. I haven't shopped at Walmart in the last 15 or so years.

As for the why it was done ... nope we don't know exactly why.

However, I was once told by a very wise person. "It's hard for those that haven't been persecuted or their rights denied to see when it is happening in others are be concerned about it."

Until you become a target of something, I guess it's harder for someone to see others as a target. When your lifestyle or rights aren't being denied, I can see how it would be easy for someone to dismiss something as coincidence.

[Rico]

While, I'm not at all a fan of censorship, frankly Apple can do whatever they want.  I find it not so much a problem with them as a company but as a problem with the average person out there on the street.  They are catering to the majority.  And sadly, the majority has a narrow view of things.  While it would be great if they could more open and progressive, that just isn't the way the world works right now.  I mean look at the whole gay marriage thing (not to go off on a tangent).  Many people are still living in the middle ages and would love to burn people at the stake for certain life styles or views.  For me, they can't change the way I think or feel - and that's what really matters.

[Bryancd]

Yep, they certainly have been at the forefront of opposing euqal rights for gay couples....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html
"Apple has joined Google in publicly opposing a California ballot initiative that would deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The company announced Friday that it would donate $100,000 to the No on Prop 8 campaign, which opposes a measure to ban gay marriage that California voters will consider a week from Tuesday. Google has also spoken out against the ballot measure.
"Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees' same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights--including the right to marry--should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8," the company said in a statement posted to the Hot News section of its Web site."

And here is a much more fair and balanced article regarding Apple's content restrictions and the issue's they face being a provider of content as well as an advocate for free speech. They have to manage a difficult situation. They are certainly not denying anyone their rights.

http://prismcomics.org/display.php?id=1858

I think what is clear is that any media company will have to walk a fine line between freedom of speech and expression, which is what this is about, not denial of rights, Chris, and the potential mainstream backlash,  potential litigation, and damage to their shareholders. It's not going to be perfect, someone, some group, some creative peice willl likely be dissapointed, but I think it's clear that not everything is so cut and dry.

[X]

I think what is clear is that any media company will have to walk a fine line between freedom of speech and expression, which is what this is about, not denial of rights, Chris, and the potential mainstream backlash,  potential litigation, and damage to their shareholders. It's not going to be perfect, someone, some group, some creative peice willl likely be dissapointed, but I think it's clear that not everything is so cut and dry.

It's nice to see that they donated. It's not nice to see, thanks to your link, what cause things to get banned in some cases. I would love to have the ability to clack it up to business being business, but in this world you can't. Anyone that has fought for someone's rights quickly learn that there is no coincidence. It doesn't matter what standard that Apple used to ban the gay content, merely that they did ban it. Instead of letting the materials speak for themselves, they buried it. Was it because they caved to earlier complain about gay material? Was it because they wanted to please the majority at the expense of the minority? I have no clue, but the person inside me that wants his children to grow up in a world were everyone can be treated with equal respect, tells me that sometimes the act is more damaging that the reasoning behind the act.

They allow Kick Ass, but banned a book with two dudes kissing. I guess it's okay to have a minor tortured by attaching jumper cables to their crotch, having a preteen dismember people, and a kid pretend that he's gay to get the girl, but two shirtless dude cross the line?

It doesn't have to be cut and dry ... but ... could they try to make it a little less targeted?

[Bryancd]

It doesn't have to be cut and dry ... but ... could they try to make it a little less targeted?

Well, before we start saying that gay sexual content is "targeted" we need to also consider what kinds of heterosexual content is also not allowed. Clearly there is, and in my mind should be, a limit to the amount of sexually provocative, gay or hetero, material, violent images, ect. that a public company is going to allow to be accessed using their products. I'm not even a parent, but I would certainly want to know what my child could gain access to using a product I might purchase from Apple. Now, we could go around and around trying to use the circular argument of "well, they allow this BUT not this!" and never get anywhere.  What's offensive to one person may be someone else's high art.

Apple is a business which sells consumer products. They are not a government. They are not arbiters of public morality, they are simply a consumer products company, one that has taken a public stance supporting gay rights. When they make a decision to not allow sexually graphic images to be accessed using one of their applications, gay or straight, they are simply making a business decision to protect themselves from consumer backlash, they are not passing judgement on anyones lifestyle. It's unfortunate that's the case and we are not more tolerant a society, but it is who we are as a Nation right now. And gay or straight, I think there is a lot of perverse sexual content out there I think has no place in my world and I personally will never defend it. I will, however, never fight against it's right to exist.

[X]

It doesn't have to be cut and dry ... but ... could they try to make it a little less targeted?

Well, before we start saying that gay sexual content is "targeted" we need to also consider what kinds of heterosexual content is also not allowed. Clearly there is, and in my mind should be, a limit to the amount of sexually provocative, gay or hetero, material, violent images, ect. that a public company is going to allow to be accessed using their products. I'm not even a parent, but I would certainly want to know what my child could gain access to using a product I might purchase from Apple. Now, we could go around and around trying to use the circular argument of "well, they allow this BUT not this!" and never get anywhere.  What's offensive to one person may be someone else's high art.

Apple is a business which sells consumer products. They are not a government. They are not arbiters of public morality, they are simply a consumer products company, one that has taken a public stance supporting gay rights. When they make a decision to not allow sexually graphic images to be accessed using one of their applications, gay or straight, they are simply making a business decision to protect themselves from consumer backlash, they are not passing judgement on anyones lifestyle. It's unfortunate that's the case and we are not more tolerant a society, but it is who we are as a Nation right now. And gay or straight, I think there is a lot of perverse sexual content out there I think has no place in my world and I personally will never defend it. I will, however, never fight against it's right to exist.

From the link you posted, we saw exactly what they didn't like about at least one of those products.

As a parent, and I won't pretend to speak for other parents, it's not Apple's job to censor what my child sees.That's my job. I don't need or want Apple to do my job for me.

So the don't like gay people kissing. Would you take a stand if they decided that dudes in spandex is too provocative and then remove any books with those images?

Also look at those images, they aren't graphic at all.

Here is the funny part in your stance. These are items that are contained within apps, but they have no problems allowing Netflix content through the netflix app. I think the Story of O is still playing on the app.

So one app can show in sound and visuals, the Story of O, but a comic has to black bar what won't even count as r rated materials?

By censoring things, they have taken a stance as arbiters or public morality, you can disagree with that, but how can you censor things without taking that stance?

I also don't agree with your ideas that companies should have limits. What happens if your computer or internet company decides to block sites that you like because they have some perceived issue? Companies should not have that sort of power. Leave the censoring to the government, parents, and personal judgement.

[Ktrek]

I'm not sure what the big deal is here. A company, or business, has the right to determine who will buy their product and what it will do. If a restaurant owner has a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" then they can can refuse to serve you. You do not have a "right" that supercedes their rights. That is exactly what I read in these posts is people wanting their "supposed" rights be imposed on Apple. It's their product and they can do what they want with it. You can call it censorship and I call it business. The Bill of Rights does not give you the "right" to force your supposed rights on other people or even businesses. In fact this issue is not even addressed. If you don't like Apple's decision then don't support them in purchasing their products. It's that simple. And if you really have to have that app on your Ipad then softroot the darn thing and bypass Apple altogether!

Kevin