Apple bans a comic book, firestorm ensues

Apple also censors music videos marked “explicit”, sometimes in very odd ways. Sometimes they censor the sex and leave the violence and sometimes visa-versa. Sometimes they obscure the word “stoned” while leaving the F-word in the same video.

I would like to see Apple allow their users or their users parents decide what is appropriate. What the iTunes store needs is parental controls (that the adult users can bypass).

“Can I force Fortune Magazine to publish my trash?”

Indeed you can.

You can buy the organisation and appoint the editor. Ask Rupert Murdoch is this seems far fetched. One ought not let the visions of little men constrain our world, and all that.

One thing you cannot buy, directly, is government.
Theoretically. In practice, of course, government is for sale to the highest bidder. We love it, and call it democracy.

This probably isn’t the place, but the laws governing information in the public domain are going to be the political battleground of the future, and the ideas offered by journalists must evolve.

Copyright is a law against sharing information, and insofar as that truth is forgotten and corporations continue to control media and technology continues to allow further and more detailed control, ordinary people are going to come face to face with an ugly truth: property rights of corporations have more standing at law than the human right to exchange information in the public domain.

It is the axiomatic flaw in capitalist democracy, and why anarco-syndicalism is the only way forward for thinking folks.

Now eat your lentils.

It’s not censorship because they have every right to distribute their comic in any number of other places including their own website or store. If they want to sell the app, separate the content and let them obtain it from another venue. This is not a difficult concept. No one should be able to force you to sell anything as a business. If they did, wouldn’t that be overreaching and trampling on the business owner’s rights?

So don’t buy Apple products. They’re stylish, but horribly overpriced and far from perfect. They’re largely status symbols. You can find other tools accomplish what you need.

All this is going to do is increase the use of jailbreak apps out there, and eventually apple will lose complete ability to make profit on the distribution of apps. This opens the same can of works as an ISP trying to throttle certain content. For all the fanboys out there defending apple’s move, how is this any different than comcast limiting your bittorent traffic, which you are all up in arms about? Comcast could claim they do not intend to distribute that content to you and that it is a violation of the use of their network. At the end of the day, the consumer has rights as well for use of the device that they purchased, even if it is outside of the limited imagination of the initial intended use of the owner of the distribution network.

People who are saying that Apple is censoring what they sell or offer, need to go buy a book on basic business practice. While I dislike some of Apple’s products because they are bug-filled, Apple is not censoring anything. It is their right as a business to determine what they can or cannot sell. So all those that are preaching the whole “Apple is censoring this and that”, go buy a book and grow a brain.

First, this is absolutely censorship. Geoffrey is just plain incorrect when he says that only a government can censor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

Second, censorship is often warranted, and Apple has a right to do it. Craig is correct to point out that you can’t demand businesses sell pornography.

But it’s a fine line. Apple doesn’t have to sell porn, but what if a racist was in charge of the company. Could they refuse to sell content created by black people? Things get murky where Apple’s rights and responsibilities collide.

What is BAD about censorship is this:

It’s a lot of work to make content. If Apple censors content, creators have to be very careful. They need to SELF-CENSOR before even creating content, to minimize the risk that they will be unable to sell their product. So they start to stay even away from the grey areas. They are afraid to explore.

Does Apple want to be creating that force in the market? Every time they use their power to censor, they do.

Wow… to all you people about free speech and censorship… I want to be able to go to my local walmart and purchase a playboy or penthouse. Why is this not possible? because the store chooses not to sell it. So to all of you “simpson’s comic book guy” out there, get over it!

Though I personally am not a supporter of violent, inappropriate content, Apple’s lack of dedication to freedom of the press, fair play, and not censoring content is the final nail in apple’s coffin. Their lousy, broken products, useless customer service, lack of quality and style, and dedication to closed doors and DRM means that this teen, and many others, will never support Apple.

I have to remind people again of the definition of censorship, which is when the governmental authorities forbid something from being published. It’s not censorship to refuse to sell a product, for any reason or for no reason. There’s no law that Apple is forced to sell this comic or anything else– they can sell what they want. It’s not censorship unless Infurious is not allowed to sell it themselves.

It is truly amazing. Apple can completely control whatever content it choses to. That is not a violation of the Freedom of the Press right. Only when the government intervenes is it a violation of rights.

GRRRRR! I’m soo full of PENT UP RAGE!!!!

Responding to Brad:
Yes, you can use Safari to find whatever you want on the Internet. It does not automatically come set up with a pornographic site as the homepage, however. You have to make a conscious decision to seek out the material. That’s not the case with the app and comic as it was bundled.

Apple chose not to distribute the application, not just the comic book. The book was bundled with the app. I’m sure Apple would make the book available if it were separate from the app, allowing people to choose whether or not to read it. Making everyone who uses the app take the comic would be similar to providing Showgirls or Sin City with every DVD player. Not everyone wants those movies in their home.
People need to stop calling this censorship. The Constitution’s freedom of speech covers only the author’s ability to produce the trash without repercussion. It does not guarantee that he or she would be able to sell it. That’s the free market.

What about Safari? [begin-sarcasm] I’ve been told there are actual pornographic websites that one can easily get to.[end-sarcasm]

What everybody is overlooking here is the fact that Apple allows the same content in different media files. Violence and sex sell music, and they sell the music that promotes it. Also, movies promote violence and sex and Apple sells that as well.

There is a huge amount of hypocrisy and cenorship in what Apple is doing. Of course they have the right to pick and choose what they sell but don’t tell us it’s because something is too violent or sex filled.

“What’s your definition of “child”? Or do you think our responsibilities as a parent stop when the “child” turns 14?”

This statement doesn’t even make sense in the context of a response to my statement that kids don’t necessarily need cell phones, let alone an iPhone. However, my definition of child is irrelevant. The legal definition of someone in their legal minority is under 18.

Up until that point, the kid doesn’t need to have access to any given item, other than those necessary for survival, that the parents don’t feel appropriate. I haven’t a clue where you pulled 14 from, but the answer is that I’m pretty sure that any court would conclude that your parenting responsibilities continue up until 18.

Give me a break. This is like forcing a magazine to publish your story or forcing a radio station to play a song. It is a business decision, and has nothing to do with rights. Infurious Comics is still free to distribute the content by other means.
Good luck trying to get Random House to publish your trash in the name of “Free speech.”

In response to “Anon”:you state that the “rights’ of the comic book have been violated. Civics lesson: books do not have rights. People have rights. The question here seems to revolve around our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The authors of the comic book exercised both of these rights when they wrote the book. No one or no agency ever told them they could not write it or publish it. Apple is simply choosing not to sell it.They are under no obligatin to anyone to sell anything. Even if they do sell other trash, they do not have to sell this trash. The authors of the comic book are free to try to sell their work anyway the can, but they can’t force people to distribute it.

Why is there even a problem here? Apple clearly stated that it has the right to reject any material it didn’t see as fitting for its users. Just like restaurants decide if they are smoking or non-smoking, businesses are allowed to decide if guns are allowed on their premises. Apple has ever right as a business to decide what content it publishes, even if their decisions seem to be conflicting (iTunes versus iPhone).

If anything I respect apple more for rejecting violent material. I only wish they were more consistent with their policy. I agree with several of the comments posted here, the comic book company should just re-submit the app without the violent comic strip.

Last time I checked, you can download rap, comedy and metal mp3’s that can be just as “objectionable”. WHy doesn’t Apple ban these are remove them as well? Because there is more money involved in those.

I mentioned this when they removed “I am Rich” app from teh App Store, Apple is becoming a self-policing censor and is doing it under the guise of “doing what is right for the consumer”.

In 1984 Apple commercials showed that their computers could break Big Brothers grip and offer freedom. Flash forward, 2008, Apple is now Big Brother squashing the free press. Sounds like Apple is turning into Darth Vader.

Can I force Fortune Magazine to publish my trash?

Interesting comments regarding “civic” wisdom. They presume, perhaps not unfairly, that US standards of free speech are the perfection of mankind’s evolution.

Even so, the “civic” principles described here give a green light for the corporate influence of information distribution. The idea is that only the government does wrong if it censors content in the public domain. Private corporations may do as they like.

Now this idealism sounds fantastic. It presumes a world where a few corporations do not control the vast majority of information available to the public, but nevermind such details. It sounds right. It sounds correct, according to civic principles as the TV audience understand them.

So a government elected ought not have the power to censor in the public domain, BUT those who fund government campaigns can do as they wish, BECAUSE they are not elected.

Stand and deliver, folks. Your bandwidth or your life.

4. the institution, system, or practice of censoring —compare FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT

If you want to get technical, lets. This is a definition from the Merriam Webster’s dictionary. If you don’t see the correlation between freedom of speech and “”rights”", I simply don’t hold your opinion in very high regard.

“the rights of the comic book “Murderdrome” have been violated past a reasonable extent.” - Anon, Ulaine NM

Hate to break it to you, there is NO “right” to force someone to publish or distribute your speech.

The “rights” you speak of can only be violated by the government.

Companies \ individuals \ etc. can censor, that has nothing to do with rights.

What about that don’t you get?

Ian Wright, you said: “The idea that kids need a cell phone is debatable, to say the least. The idea that kids *need* an iPhone is pretty ridiculous.”

What’s your definition of “child”? Or do you think our responsibilities as a parent stop when the “child” turns 14?

Simple, strip the app of the offending content and resubmit the app. Whats so hard about that?
What are they trying to distribute, an app or the comic?
Sounds like this was a case of a company trying to utilize the huge amount traffic in the app store to promote their comic, which of course is not an app.

Rich in Fair Lawn, thank you for bringing rationality back to the discussion. It scares me that so many Americans are willing to deliberately equivocate government power with voluntary private business transactions to argue for an outcome favorable to their personal agenda.

Excellent point by Rich Fair: “They (Apple) chose not to distribute; that’s not censorship, that’s a business decision. Censorship occurs when the GOVERNMENT tells someone they cannot say or write something.” More companies should follow suit against this type of material.

I agree with Apple 100%. This “comic book” material is PURELY VIOLENT TRASH which will only do harm to its readers - regardless of their age. Apple has done the right thing and other companies should follow suit.

“Suspect a lot of the bloggers are under 40 and as such have not matured enough to think about their impact on the culture, and the legacy they are leaving for their children.”

No, but we suspect that at some point the parent needs to take responsibility for what their children use. No one can keep an eye on their kids 24×7, of course, but this oft repeated idea that this is protecting the children completely neglects the fact that this is an expensive piece of equipment that goes well beyond what any child needs to (or should) have.

The idea that kids need a cell phone is debatable, to say the least. The idea that kids *need* an iPhone is pretty ridiculous. Somehow as a sales professional in the IT industry, I’m getting by just fine with a 2 year old Razr which barely has a browser, can play a few games, and has a cruddy camera. Frankly, I could probably get by with less.

My point being that children do not need an iPhone. If they happen to have one, then the child’s parents need to take responsibility to make sure that it is being used appropriately. Adults with an iPhone can, and should, make their own decisions as to what constitutes “appropriate” in their own eyes.

As far as the other point about the relative badness of Murderdrome being an irrelevant discussion, the point is not that Murderdrome is not violent or that it is appropriate for children. The point is that Apple already has *equally* violent content, so this is a policy that is being executed poorly when they bother to execute at all.

I don’t know about censorship towards the author, but this is a bit of an infringement by Apple on the owner of an iPhone who exercised his/her freedom of choice to download the application.

Since when does a company that manufacturers a product get to continue to tell you want you can and can’t do with it AFTER you’ve paid them for that product? That would be like Ford coming back a year after you’ve bought your pickup truck and forcing you to not drive over 35 mph.

The end lesson here, is, don’t buy iPods, iPhones, or use iTunes, because Apple believes it knows what you want better than you do, and believes you should pay them for the privilege. Spend your money elsewhere (and let the free market put them out of business).

I beg to differ, Rich. Here are a few definitons of the word “censorship;”

1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.

2. The office or authority of a Roman censor

3. counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy.

4. the institution, system, or practice of censoring —compare FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRIOR RESTRAINT

Notice the freedom of speech part? It is quite clear to me, and anyone with the ability to reason and maintain a strictly objective and analytical viewpoint on the matter, that the rights of the comic book “Murderdrome” have been violated past a reasonable extent. I feel as though this act of AAPL shows just how unAmerican the company truely is.

Bloggers who say look around see murderdrome is not as bad as–is like standing in a pile of rubbish and pointing out other rubbish. Suspect a lot of the bloggers are under 40 and as such have not matured enough to think about their impact on the culture, and the legacy they are leaving for their children.

WOW. This thread proves that we need a huge push in the public schools to teach civics and the meaning of the Constitution. The comic book’s publishers exercised their right to free speech by publishing the book. Apple (or any other company) is under no obligation to distribute the comic. They chose not to distribute; that’s not censorship, that’s a business decision. Censorship occurs when the GOVERNMENT tells someone they cannot say or write something.

I find the idea of “gun carrying Christian” far more disturbing than the inclusion of a comic book

that the person felt it important to even give that context to their comments sounds like a threat

It just telegraphs:

I have narrow values and the means to enforce them.

or maybe it’s supposed to mean:

I pick and choose what amendments and laws I like based on my narrow mindset.

amazingly, all the amendments are meant to apply to everyone

and there is no right to not be offended.

if you don’t like something, don’t read it, don’t watch it

but you have no right to prevent other people from accessing the content.

“Your right to pedal filth stops, at the very least, at the minds of children.”

Thanks for this well thought conclusion that all children do or should have iPhones. I guess that the idea that parents should be exercising some level of control over what technology their kids have or have access to is right out with the “Won’t somebody think of the children” crowd.

I guess that the line of thought that maybe kids could get by with a basic cellphone is way too radical for such people.

MJ suggests that we need to be open-minded. Apparently, she is so open-minded that her brain fell out. This was a sound call by Apple.

The discussion appears to reflect the ongoing confusion as to what the term censorship means. Not to worry however, most Americans don’t understand this legal concept either. This is not censorship, it is a business decision. Censorship is a function of government, and nothing here relates to the comic being restricted, rather, Apple (to their credit) has made a decision as to appropriateness of violent content.

Civics lesson, kiddies (Tom, Dale): “censorship” within the terms of a business agreement by a company such as this one never was nor will be a First Amendment issue.

Apple’s product, Apple’s choice. Don’t like it? Create your own, take your business elsewhere. That’s the American way.

I’d write more but I’m to busy yawning at this “non-story”.

Hey all you “Gun Carrying Christians” commenting on this story - what part of “Thou Shall Not Kill” don’t you understand? You’re not Christians at all, so stuff the morality judgments already.

This is an outrage. Apple should be sued for violating the constitution which gives us, as Americans, the right to free speach. I plan on following up on this with an energetic message to AAPL of my own.

Apple is not infringing on anyone’s freedom of speech. The “artist” is welcome to make any kind of comic book he or she wants to. That doesn’t mean that Apple has to distribute it. Apple has the right to determine what kind of content is associated with its brand. It is smart business sense. Why do you think Disney created Touchstone? They didn’t want “adult” movies to be distributed under the Disney name.

This isn’t a free speech or first amendment issue. Stop trying to make it one. Apple is a private enterprise and is other no obligation to provide a forum for every type of speech. Like a newspaper that doesn’t have to publish every wacky letter they receive, Apple doesn’t have to sell every application that’s submitted to them.

This is a common misunderstanding related to the right of “free speech” and it’s well past time we all learned about it.

they had to clear some room for more tip calculator apps.

lord knows we can’t get enough of those.

The comic is bundled with the application not allowing anyone to choose what they order with regards to reading material. Infurious should be smarter, if you know a title is controversial, don’t stuff it down the public’s throat by bundling it with software. This would be similar to Sony saying that any PlayStation sold will come bundled with GTA.

Your right to pedal filth stops, at the very least, at the minds of children.

Apple did the right thing.

Good move for Apple.

This is not about free speech, it’s about a private business protecting the quality of its brand.

No one is stopping the comic book publisher from publishing comics out in the public world.

I agree with Apple. This type of media should not be associated with a great company. Apple again shows it’s class.

Wow, last I knew I lived in the United States of America. Since when is Freedom of Speech being squashed a good thing? I may not enjoy this comic but if you don’t want to view it do the right thing and well….don’t view it. Telling people they can’t see something is just wrong.

Wait a minute here. Who is the seller here - Infurious, right? Who is enabling them to sell their work-Apple, right? So what’s so wrong if Apple decides to enforce what Infurious agreed to in the contract? It’s the same liberals that sign a credit card agreement and decide later on that the fees are too high!! Read the contract - this is America. If you don’t like it, take your business elsewhere. Since morality is subjective anyway, what’s wrong if a company tries to establish its own principles?

Great Apple, now can you remove the other filth from your site?

This was poorly written Phil, and portrayed

Good for Apple for watching out for our kids who have iPhones. I know they can still access the web, etc., but at least they are doing their part. It might even help sell more phones if parents hear Apple is doing their best to keep the apps within their guidelines.

Gun carrying Christian…one question…have you read this comic? No need to spread misinformation about a topic you know nothing about. And comparing it to kiddie porn, crystal meth, and what, video game rape!? As a gun carrying Republican (what does guns have to do with this anyway), I’ve played easily over 100 video games in my life and I’ve never once seen any type of rape. Stop listening blindly to your Dr. Dobbs Focus on the Family news letter….Stop living in fear and go outside with an open mind that thinks for itself…enjoy some sunshine.

Strange…when Walmart censors something, everyone gets up in arms but if it is done by the bastion of liberty Apple, it is all pats on the back. Again, if you don’t like something don’t read/watch it.

I’m not in favor of censorship, but there’s a real problem here: anybody who wants the app gets the comic, whether or not it’s appropriate. Better to bundle an innocuous bonus, and put Murderdrome in iTunes where it’s subject to the rating system.

Apple owns it; Apple decides.

‘irregardless’ is not a word. as a gun carrying christian, i thought you would smarter than that.

Putting Apple in the same league as Wal-Mart?

Now that’s low.

To the “gun carrying Christians” in the audience… we have something called the first amendment where individual people choose, not corporations or the goverment, what we do or do not want to watch/read/consume. Just because you and your kids aren’t smart enough or adult enought to regulate yourselves, doesn’t mean the rest of America needs help.

Grow up.

Tommy D, I agree with your assessment concerning the plile of trash openly shown in murdersome, but please never repeat IRREGARDLESS. Tha’s worse that murdersome, it kills the language.

Yay for Apple!

Apple has actually managed to top Google and Microsoft in sheer evil!
It’s like they just don’t care about free speech.

Why are people paying $500 for a phone they can’t even use as they want anyway?

As a “non-gun carrying Christian” (seriously, what was the relevance of that sobriquet?), I hardly think that putting the novel in the Apple Store qualifies as “forcing it down our kids throats”. It places it there as an option but, as the article points out, Apple has lots of stuff available that is very graphic and violence. They simply filter it via a ratings system.

It is the inconsistency of the policy that is the primary issue here — Reservoir Dogs (you know, the movie where a guy gets his ear chopped off as just a small taste of the violence) is acceptable, but for whatever reason a graphic novel is not.

Moreover, plenty of responsible adults use technologies like the iPhone and iTunes. It is up to them to make the decision for themselves if the content is too violent for their tastes. For example, I probably wouldn’t be interested in reading it. However, I have friends who would be.

Adults shouldn’t have regulations like this “forced down our throats” because parents don’t want to be bothered with finding out what their kids are doing or reading with technology… Or, heaven forbid, not getting them a piece of tech that they will likely be using for objectionable content.

Right on Apple!

We need more of exactly this!

even PJ Holden is backing away, so he understands, that for Apple to handle, it is a privilege, not a right. Apple can make their own decision (for their stockholders) about what they want to be involved in. If enough people complain, maybe they will change their mind. Murderdrome? I really doubt it. Never be missed. And ratings systems? How far we have fallen as a culture that we argue about this lowest of the hanging fruit. Pathetic.

As a gun carrying Christian let me say this…

Good for Apple! Murderdrome is just a senseless rag that numbs the senses to the rewards of better choices. Like kiddie porn, crystal meth and tortious rape on computer games, you can always find a buyer and supplier easily somewhere else. We don’t need to force it down our kids throats by putting it on the shelves on Apple or Walmart.

Irregardless sensationalism just to make a buck. Find something better to do with your life.

Good for you Apple!

Thank you so much for bringing this important matter to our attention during a time of war.

Oh, stuff it. You’re the one who’s dim enough to be looking for war coverage in an Apple web log.

Inn other breaking news important to Phil last night:

An Apple employee struck and killed a puppy at a Cupertino intersection last night, then fled the scene.

No suspects have been apprehended.

Maybe the bar is lower these days but “…dozens of responses” doesn’t exactly measure up to the image of a FIRESTORM!

I’m certainly no fan of censorship but it seems to me that Infurious could have limited its App Store offering to the Comic Viewer and used Murderdrome as a downsream incentive to use it. But then, all this publicity wouldn’t have accrued, introducing the comic to people who’ve never heard of it before.

Oh the horror of it all Phil. Thank you so much for bringing this important matter to our attention during a time of war. Thank you Phil. Thank you.

Murderdrome AND Ulysses?
Anything goes?
(Lady Chatterley’s isn’t exactly holding up so well - so our collective [in]sanity of fading interest is perhaps a reliable judge of lasting esthetic value[s])
What many raging bloggers could use is a skilled and consistent editor, BUT then they, too, would scream “censorship.”
It is the internal censor, my dear, that has been slipping up a lot lately; I am afraid, candy vendors, too have/had a strong lobby. ‘and face it Murderdrome et al. is just candy, nothing more.
cheers!