35 votes

Apple Censors App That Reports Drone Strikes

http://youtu.be/wM8LuiRzL2U

February 09, 2013 MSNBC News
http://MOXNews.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Since you have decided to insert your nose into this...

From his own post:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Which of those descriptors fits Apple in this case, Tx?

The app. writer is certainly

The app. writer is certainly providing public communications, and Apple, the controlling body of all apps. in its app store considers it objectionable, so they censored it.

the next line from the Wikipedia definition of censorship: "It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

You are obviously confusing "censorship" with the First Amendment right to free speech.

FROM WHERE do you get the idea that ONLY GOVERNMENT can "censor" speech?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

"You are obviously confusing

"You are obviously confusing "censorship" with the First Amendment right to free speech."

And that is JUST it.. which I already made a comment about above. This guy/girl just isn't getting it.

He/she thinks that only Government can censor and that it is suppressing freedom of speech. It is when Government does it. It isn't when private persons/company does it, then it is just plain censorship.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

A "controlling body" would be

A "controlling body" would be a legal authority, one that creates or enforces the law. Not a company.

That's it, you really don't

That's it, you really don't want us to believe that you believe this? First, it is separate FROM Government which is a body that DOES enforce the law. A controlling body is anyone, or anything that is controlling like an employer.

Just you saying it is not a company doesn't make it so. NY Times can censor information they don't want out.

I really don't your point to all this. Sure they have a right to do whatever they want, but it is still censorship when someone suppresses information they find sensitive, objectionable etc.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

If we go to a dictionary

If we go to a dictionary definition, certainly an example is government, but I have yet to find one, and I've looked at many, dictionary defining censorship as being exclusive to government. In fact, it is only in dictionary word usage examples where often government is mentioned, but not in the actual definition for the verb "censor".

If we use the wiki definition, which Brian Middleton only post a portion of, we see CLEARLY that "controlling body" does NOT mean legal authority. Looking at the FULL wiki definition we see CLEARLY that censorship is NOT limit to "legal authority":

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It mayor may not be legal.

The "controlling body" is the one controlling the content in question, whether that controlling body is public or private is irrelevent, it is STILL the controlling body. On the Daily Paul, Michael Nystrom is the Controlling Body. He is legally allowed to censor anything written within his website, there by denying free speech on his website. This is in no way a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, yet it IS censorship, and it IS a denial of free speech. One could easily define "censorship" simply as a DENIAL of FREE expression.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

I find your entire argument

I find your entire argument bizarre. Do you care about government restricting free speech, or do you care about a private company's right to exclude content they find objectionable?

The concern is misplaced and your comprehension seems warped.

Actually it is your

Actually it is your comprehension that is warped... but then again, I don't it matters what anyone says to you...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

"Do you care about government

"Do you care about government restricting free speech, or do you care about a private company's right to exclude content they find objectionable?"

Neither is my concern.

That you make statement's to others such as, "Again, this illustrates you simply do not understand the meaning of the word censorship. A dictionary definition would be an excellent starting point. Read it and think about it. There is no excuse for not taking the time to learn and understand the things for which this site and our Constitution stand.", THAT is what I am arguing. In other words, I'm arguing your stupidity. Hence the reason it seems so bizarre to you.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Have a nice day.

It's pointless to continue this debate. Enjoy.

Apple is Incorporated under

Apple is Incorporated under the laws (jurisdiction) of the United States.

Incorporate:
1. To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence:
2. To admit as a member to a corporation or similar organization.
3. To cause to merge or combine together into a united whole.
4. To cause to form into a legal corporation
5. To give substance or material form to; embody.

Are legal corporations REALLY privately owned, or have they joined with, become one with, the Government?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

True enough, but I hardly see

True enough, but I hardly see a reason other than bowing down to the government for such a ban.

Right, it's de facto censorship

When a corporation does something to ingratiate itself to a government at the expense of other customers, it is de facto censorship disguised as a business decision.

Apple and FeceBook, with Google playing catch-up, are threats to liberty enjoying natural monopolies which may not be entirely "natural".

Is it a failure of the free market that it's unable to make products as trendy as Apple's products, unable to make a social medium that's not predatory (maybe no demand for it?), and constantly failing to integrate open-standard crypto into all communications by default?

In the mean time pay attention to the fact that many, many things which were legal and believed to be constitutionally protected free speech when many of us were in college are now felonies which can get you arrested or droned.

Take back the GOP and Restore America Now.

That is still incorrect. The

That is still incorrect. The business may do anything they want in order to protect their interests and add value for their shareholders. If they view an app as controversial or risky, they may exclude it. Frankly, the reasons don't matter. Their property is their property and they can do whatever they want with it. If someone disagrees with the way they choose to run their business, guess what? They can take their app elsewhere.

You truely are correct.

You truely are correct. Apple has the right to censor whatever they want within their own business.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

In the free speech sense,

In the free speech sense, "censorship" does not apply here. Also, since the app was removed there was no attempt to alter or direct its content. The developer is free to offer their app, rewritten for Android or Windows Phone or Blackberry or whatever other platform they choose, for sale or for free.

If you prefer to argue from a semantic POV, it still does not apply.

I never mentioned free

I never mentioned free speech. In the censorship sense, this is censorship. You have told 2 individuals here that they should acquaint themselves with the definition of "censorship" yet YOU are the one who should acquaint yourself with such definition. You have said very directly that Apple removing this app is NOT censorship. While I would agree that it does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech, that does NOT mean it is not censorship, nor does it mean that it does not violate free speech. It just means it does not violate the Constitution, and it means Apple has no obligation to allow free speech. Apple CAN censor what they choose to on their app store/itunes. Apple CAN DENY free speech on their sites.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

We should start calling drones 'drizzles'.

Fo' shizzle.

Pandas can't drive.

Apple is free to offer or

Apple is free to offer or restrict apps in their own store. This is not censorship. The app Dev is likewise free to offer their app or web site to the public on other platforms.

Yep..

and I am free not to buy any of their products.

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

You do realize that majority

You do realize that majority of products in the Apple App store isn't made by Apple, right? Your boycot may be well intended, but misdirected...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

If they support Apple by making products for them..

Why should I worry about supporting those people?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

The point being that

The point being that censorship comes from government, not private companies.

Then what is it

when a private company refuses to allow some token of free speech because of a political calculation?

The developer says they blocked his app on the grounds that the app had, "excessively crude or objectionable content." The app is designed to report upon a newsworthy trend regarding an aspect of American foreign policy.

The question isn't whether or not this can be called censorship. But rather, what are the underlying MOTIVATIONS for blocking this kind of content?

To be fair, Apple has allowed "excessively crude" material to be uploaded and downloaded through iTunes... But what specifically is so "crude" and "objectionable" about reporting on who America is maiming and killing with its hellfire missiles?

A company's reasons are

A company's reasons are irrelevant. Have they broken the law? No. Have they unconstitutionally denied someone of their free speech rights? No.

In this day of seemingly free and bountiful access to everything online or through a "smartphone" it is easy to overlook the fact that you are actually exchanging something. You either give up your money, your time or your eyeballs (via advertising) for all of that access. If you are foolish enough to use Facebook, you are giving up an awful lot in exchange for the privilege of posting drunk pictures and making snarky comments about Kim Kardashian.

Just a lil clarification

So just that I understand: It's perfectly legitimate that Apple blocked an App detailing US War Crimes because they are a private company, because they've broken no laws, and because the banning of politically sensitive material cannot be considered censorship?

It brings up another question in my mind. Now Apple is not a major media network but were you the least bit angry with the media for the way they treated Ron Paul's candidacy in '08 and '12? Or does the biases of major corporations not concern you because they are private firms and so their motivations are irrelevant?

You do understand that Apple is a contracting party with the federal government and therefore has a profit motive to possibly restrict these kinds of Apps, right?

Censorship comes from my wallet.

I choose who to censor with my wallet.

Let me give you an example of what I mean..

In a true free market, restaurant owners could set up a sign saying "No white people allowed" or "No black people allowed" or "No bald people allowed". I would be ok with that because they would be managing their business the way they wanted to manage it.

Being ok with them doing that is not the same as supporting that behavior. I would vote them down with my purchasing power and would not eat at those restaurants. If I happened to see you walk in to one of those restaurants to eat and lets say you had a flower shop, I would not buy any flowers from you..

Censorship comes from anyone willing to make use of it.

Our true power is in our wallets, not in the "opportunity" to vote every X amount of years..

Peace

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Again, this illustrates you

Again, this illustrates you simply do not understand the meaning of the word censorship. A dictionary definition would be an excellent starting point. Read it and think about it. There is no excuse for not taking the time to learn and understand the things for which this site and our Constitution stand.

Again..

QFT:

"Again, this illustrates you
Submitted by Velveeta Underground on Mon, 02/11/2013 - 02:33.
Again, this illustrates you simply do not understand the meaning of the word censorship. A dictionary definition would be an excellent starting point. Read it and think about it. There is no excuse for not taking the time to learn and understand the things for which this site and our Constitution stand."

"Again, this illustrates you simply do not understand the meaning of the word censorship."

Provide your definition with verifiable links please.

"A dictionary definition would be an excellent starting point."

Exactly, please go ahead and use one and post some links here.

"Read it and think about it."

Yep, go ahead.

"There is no excuse for not taking the time to learn and understand the things for which this site and our Constitution stand."

Bravo, so do it.

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Now that you've proven you

Now that you've proven you know how to cut and paste, how about following through on that suggestion?