Apple's Developer License Agreement gives it the power to censor "offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind" or any "other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod Touch users." Apple has been known to disable or "Brick" the iPhones of users who attempt to bypass its control. And now that Apple is aggressively getting into the book and magazine business with its new iPad, the troubling idea that Rahm Emanuel's donor and Al Gore will be deciding what people can or can't read takes on new meaning.
So when Apple decided that the following statement in Ari David's app, "(Waxman) Supported Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket” was defamatory, it was passing judgment on political speech. And determining what political content would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Robert Gibbs' regular put downs will apparently pass. Ari David's policy oriented criticism of Waxman won't. Similarly anti-war radical Adam Kokesh's App was allowed through, even though he's running as a sham Republican. Or perhaps because of that.
The problem is not limited to just Apple. Facebook responding to the boycotts and death threats coming out of Pakistan, by pulling the Facebook page for Everybody Draw Mohammed, proving that while it may be a useful organizing tool, it is also highly vulnerable to being censored. The same goes for YouTube which has taken down many videos, including Michelle Malkin's and videos questioning Islamic violence. There are numerous similar examples of political censorship, whether out of fear or bias, no one but those on the inside can even begin to say. The larger problem is that the censorship does indeed exist.
Many of these same companies very badly want the government to step in and protect their business model with Net Neutrality, yet while they believe that the government should compel cable and other broadband providers to give them open access to their customers and data sources, they don't have any intention of returning that same favor to their users. This inconsistency between actions and demands also makes it impossible to trust them.
If Apple cannot tolerate a campaign App which criticizes a congressman for wanting to make vitamins, over the counter only, what sort of political speech can it tolerate? With something like 30 million iPhone users out there, the question is both timely and troubling. The technology we use today has empowered a New Media, but if large companies such as Apple insist on turning their platforms into gated communities, then the same old struggle has to begin again.
So when Apple decided that the following statement in Ari David's app, "(Waxman) Supported Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket” was defamatory, it was passing judgment on political speech. And determining what political content would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. Robert Gibbs' regular put downs will apparently pass. Ari David's policy oriented criticism of Waxman won't. Similarly anti-war radical Adam Kokesh's App was allowed through, even though he's running as a sham Republican. Or perhaps because of that.
The problem is not limited to just Apple. Facebook responding to the boycotts and death threats coming out of Pakistan, by pulling the Facebook page for Everybody Draw Mohammed, proving that while it may be a useful organizing tool, it is also highly vulnerable to being censored. The same goes for YouTube which has taken down many videos, including Michelle Malkin's and videos questioning Islamic violence. There are numerous similar examples of political censorship, whether out of fear or bias, no one but those on the inside can even begin to say. The larger problem is that the censorship does indeed exist.
Many of these same companies very badly want the government to step in and protect their business model with Net Neutrality, yet while they believe that the government should compel cable and other broadband providers to give them open access to their customers and data sources, they don't have any intention of returning that same favor to their users. This inconsistency between actions and demands also makes it impossible to trust them.
If Apple cannot tolerate a campaign App which criticizes a congressman for wanting to make vitamins, over the counter only, what sort of political speech can it tolerate? With something like 30 million iPhone users out there, the question is both timely and troubling. The technology we use today has empowered a New Media, but if large companies such as Apple insist on turning their platforms into gated communities, then the same old struggle has to begin again.
Yet these same companies which have benefited from an open environment, both that of ideas and free enterprise, might wish to reconsider going down the same dead road that their media predecessors followed. Censorship lock those who censor into an inflexible mode, as by shutting down contradictory ideas, they also kill their own ability to react, adapt and change in response to new information. In essence they destroy the very elements that allowed them to be creative and succeed in the first place.
Update: Apple has conceded and has approved Ari David's app. But the questions raised here still remain.
From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News
Named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs, 2006, 2007 , 2008 and 2009
