
Apple Censors a Gay Kiss in Oscar Wilde Comic - cageface
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/app-economy/2010/06/11/it-gets-worse-apple-censored-oscar-wilde-comic-featuring-two-men-kissin?obref=obinsite
======
dieterrams
Before people work themselves into self-righteous fury (too late) about how
authoritarian Apple is censoring homosexuality and promoting a culture of
homophobia, you need to understand that this is about no-nudity, a policy the
article's writer knows full well about already, seeing as how he wrote a
previous article about it and linked to it.

As davidedicillo pointed out, he attempts to work this into an anti-gay angle
by pointing out how a comic book not directly reviewed by Apple (it is
downloadable through a comic store app) containing more explicit heterosex was
not similarly censored, which is about as airtight an analysis as you might
expect from Fox News. He literally has nothing else to base his anti-
homosexual conclusions on.

I do think Apple is fundamentally misguided in its attempts to regulate
content, and they're only going to dig themselves into a deeper hole by doing
anything beyond adopting ratings and age blockers. But unfortunately this
article is a yet another example of anti-Apple hysteria fueled sensationalism.

~~~
aphyr
Given that there is no frontal nudity in any of the panels shown, and many of
the censored scenes have no nudity whatsoever, could you further explain your
case that this censorship is "about no-nudity"? You can see more explicit
nudity than this in most daily papers, or heck, walking down the street during
a pride parade.

~~~
dieterrams
I'm not defending this policy or suggesting that it makes any sense given how
easy it is to find nudity (or sexual acts, etc.) elsewhere. It doesn't. But
the writer has simply failed to present any compelling evidence that this
censorship was about homosexuality. Given that there's an established policy
against nudity and not homosexuality, it makes more sense to consider the
former as the determinative criteria, doesn't it? Apps get rejected merely for
showing women in bathing suits.

There is one panel in the comic which does not contain any explicit or implied
nudity that's censored, but which is still obviously sexual. I've no idea if
blacking this panel out was Apple's idea and is consistent with other
policies, or if the creators just decided to play it safe. And Apple's content
regulation policies have never been consistently enforced, subject to
individual reviewers' interpretations of what's kosher. (A particularly good
reason why they should drop this process.)

Apple deserves much legitimate criticism over content regulation, but this
article isn't an example of that.

~~~
aphyr
Ah yes, implied nudity. You know, like clothes. ;)

Here's the iPhone dev agreement:
<http://www.eff.org/files/20100302_iphone_dev_agr.pdf>

The only pertinent section I can find is:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or
defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images,
photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable
judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Which, in matter of fact, does not prohibit nudity, but rather anything Apple
thinks its users might be offended by. Nudity is in fact allowed. We can
surmise this from the approval of "Fabulous nude paintings puzzle", and dozens
more like it.

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-
puzzl...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fabulous-nude-paintings-
puzzle/id354279965?mt=8)

Stranger still, "iGirl uncut", where you can "Blow her, shake her, touch her
and more", must not be obscene, objectionable, or pornographic.

<http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/igirl-uncut/id300462216?mt=8>

I agree with you: the panels are sexual. But Apple's policy clearly allows
them to ban whatever the hell they feel like. When the enforcement of that
policy is wildly inconsistent, it looks a hell of a lot like unjust content
regulation to me.

As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim
the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but
I also wouldn't be surprised.

~~~
ErrantX
_As for the article's claim of homophobia, I don't have the grounds to claim
the reviewers who censored this app were motivated by anti-gay sentiment, but
I also wouldn't be surprised._

This is the sort of reverse thinking that makes no sense.

You've made a judgement there about the person who made this decision; in my
mind there is no data on whether the reviewer has homophobic motives, but
there is certainly data to show you've decided he/she probably is.

This is bad anti-think.

I'd argue the fact that the _kiss_ is not blacked out is pretty solid evidence
this was not motivated by homophobia.

EDIT: it was unfair to suggest Aphyr made a judgement. What I really meant is
that bringing the suggestion of homophobia into the matter, with no grounds
(which is what the article does) is counter-productive and damaging. I
shouldn't have jumped on Aphyr to make that point :(

~~~
aphyr
The hell? I explicitly stated that I make no judgement, since there isn't
sufficient evidence. It's a _consistent_ explanation, but that doesn't make it
_probable_.

~~~
ErrantX
I'd argue there is absolutely no evidence (and even some counter evidence) to
suggest that homophobia came into this.

I apologise for insinuating you were judging (I agree that was uncalled for)
but I think it's important nowadays that homophobia is never brought into
these conversations unless there is obvious influence in such a decision.

It's counter productive to the whole equality battle.

~~~
bad_user
Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this?

It's consistent with their policy ... anything that many regular users find
objectionable.

Talking about baning apps for the good of the iOS platform is one thing,
baning actual content is another. I've lived a short period of time under a
totalitarian regime ... nobody was homophobic as nobody talked about it, and
content censorship was done for the good of the citizens. Not a good country
to live in.

And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children ... they
have a curios nature, and if you don't educate them properly no amount of
censorship will stop them from finding / getting what they want. Hiding stuff
away doesn't work ... even if it does, it's only short-term as they are going
to find out from their friends anyway.

Apple, you suck.

~~~
ErrantX
_Why shouldn't homophobia be brought into this?_

There appears to be nothing to suggest the fact that this is two men has
anything to do with the censorship. Therefore suggesting it does derails the
issue in the first place and propagates the remaining discrimination problem.

There is no homophobia in this issue (at least based on the information
currently available) so those bringing it in are doing so for their own
purpose (and generally they are doing untold damage to their own cause EDIT: I
should point out this is a cause close to my heart also).

 _And I really don't get what's with all this protecting of children..._

Agreed entirely.

------
cageface
This is exactly why I hope, in the long term, that HTML5/6/whatever
marginalizes apps. Technical _and_ editorial control over what we read and
write is just too much power to invest in any single company, however well-
intentioned.

~~~
CamperBob
Then they'll just start blocking sites in Safari.

------
WiseWeasel
This censorship is unacceptable. Either sell the book/comic/whatever or don't,
but don't insult us by selling us versions with a bunch of black censor blocks
covering up half the page. I'd want my money back after realizing the book I
bought was gutted by the distributor. Imagine how offensive it would be if you
bought a shrink-wrapped book from a bookstore with controversial passages cut
out from the pages.

~~~
dcurtis
Walmart does this all the time.

If you buy a CD that should have explicit lyrics at Walmart, they're bleeped
out. Walmart refuses to sell music otherwise.

~~~
iamdave
That's an unfortunate side effect of shopping at WalMart.

~~~
CamperBob
It's a hell of a lot more than an 'unfortunate side effect.' When 30-40% of
your product's sales go through WalMart, you _will_ toe their party line when
you write and edit the content you're selling.

Any sufficiently dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
Eventually people are going to understand that.

------
jkincaid
Apple has reversed the block and the developers are being invited to resubmit
the app in its original form: [http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/14/apple-
reverses-block-of-osc...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/14/apple-reverses-
block-of-oscar-wilde-graphic-novels-gay-kissing/)

For what it's worth, I specifically asked them if it was the kissing itself or
the imagery of mens' buttocks that Apple objected to. Didn't get an answer to
that question.

------
ErrantX
Troll. The _kiss_ is not censored.

 _The message is that the sight of two men kissing is a bad thing, and that
homophobia is a good thing. For allowing Apple to send that message, Steve
Jobs should be ashamed of himself._

Sorry, but I entirely despise soapbox-authors like this.

------
mbateman
This headline is really misleading. It's not just a gay kiss, it's gay nude
fondling of genitals. Seems pretty reasonable to think that the homosexual
element is incidental to the pornographic element in Apple's decision.

------
davidedicillo
This is the kind of article I can't stand.

So, one is an app directly reviewed by Apple, the other has been downloaded
from an another app. I'm sure if that was brought to Apple's attention they
would send an email to the app owner in order to remove that comic book or
censor it. I understand that Apple might not be fair or whatever, but some of
the complains are really ridiculous.

------
lsb
To be fair to Apple, they've had same-sex couples' benefits the same as
different-sex couples' since the 1970s (back when being a 'mo was a mental
illness, not cool and cowboyesque like Jake Gyllenhaal).

It's a tricky business, being in the content censorship business, because the
shield of common carrier status is very useful.

~~~
jfager
So because they have progressive and decent policies for the ~20k or so who
work for them, we should be willing to excuse the repressive and reactionary
policies they have for the millions of developers and customers who use their
products?

I don't think that's being 'fair'.

------
almost
Before we all get into a rage, is there any real evidence that they objected
to semi-nude _homosexual_ kissing and not just to semi-nude kissing in
general? That would still be kind of silly but it loses some of the rage-
inducing homophobia...

~~~
jpablo
Go to page two of the article, there's another comic that was accepted that
has implicit sex and a nipple showing.

"On a Picasa page, he posted some full pages from the original book, as well
as one page from another comic book (from Kick-Ass) of a heterosexual couple.
Apple apparently didn't have a problem with that image. Kick-Ass can be
bought, uncensored, on iTunes through the iVerse comic reader."

[http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/app-
economy/2010/06/11/it-g...](http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/app-
economy/2010/06/11/it-gets-worse-apple-censored-oscar-wilde-comic-featuring-
two-men-kissin?page=0,1&obref=obinsite)

~~~
starkfist
Apple doesn't censor comics that are purchased through iVerse.

They censor the content being sold directly through the iTunes app store.

~~~
jfager
I don't understand why this distinction is important. You have to click past
the same "Are you 17?" scare warning to download both apps that can access
external content and apps that are adult-oriented by themselves, and both can
be limited with parental controls. The former can access far more pornographic
material than this, and yet Apple is going out of its way to black this
material out? That makes _zero_ sense.

~~~
ErrantX
Simple: they are hosting the material. Im sure if there was a way to apply
censorship to material obtained in other ways they would do so. That is how
they view the platform.

~~~
jfager
Okay, that's how Apple sees the platform, and it's their right. It's also my
right to point out how ridiculous their policy is, to complain to them about
it, and to try to convince others to do the same.

If their goal is to be family-friendly, and they try to stay consistent with
that goal with apps that can download external content by putting up a scare
wall and adding parental controls, then it makes no sense at all to censor
content hosted on their own servers when they can (and do) pass it through the
exact same scare wall and parental controls.

~~~
ErrantX
Actually I see no clash there at all. Both get the same age warning, one is
controlled by Apple so they can apply the level of censorship to it that they
wish.

Certainly we should be pointing out it's the wrong approach; but I see no
ambiguity.

~~~
jfager
Pointing to a technical distinction that makes no real difference to a user's
experience is just geek-wanking. Whether from a 3rd-party server or from Apple
itself, if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is
getting pissed, and if there's any company in the world that's going to be
aware of this, it's Apple. They're obviously fine with the idea that age
warnings and parental controls are sufficient for apps that can display 3rd-
party-server content, and because they are, it's _prima facie_ ridiculous that
they would censor the same or similar content from their own servers that
passes through the same age warning and parental controls.

~~~
ErrantX
I think we are talking past each other..

As far as I can see it Apple consider the two things discrete issues. They
slap an age 17 warning on apps which give access to adult material.

Plus content containing "pornography" on the App store is censored because
they do not wish to distribute that content.

Again; I see no ambiguity there.

 _They're obviously fine with the idea that age warnings and parental controls
are sufficient control for 3rd-party-server content_

Fin in the sense they host the apps, sure. Fine in the sense they approve of
that whole idea? Probably not. But how do you practically censor those apps
(on their policy) without hindering the web experience for others. I guess
they accept the trade off :) but are they fine with it? Who knows.

 _it's prima facie ridiculous that they would censor the same or similar
content from their own servers._

I don't buy that argument, indeed you even make the counter point.

 _if adult content ends up on a kid's screen, a parent somewhere is getting
pissed_

Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to
avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous.

~~~
jfager
_Again; I see no ambiguity there._

I never said the policy was ambiguous, I said it was nonsensical.

 _Apple are directly responsible for content on the App store. So, surely, to
avoid this sort of ball ache their policy isn't ridiculous._

My point was that a pissed-off parent doesn't care where the content came
from, and that Apple, if anyone, is smart enough to realize this. Simple
logic:

1\. 3rd party content will piss people off as much as hosted.

2\. Apple perceives scare walls and parental controls to be sufficient to
manage the issue for 3rd party content.

3\. Therefore, Apple ought to perceive scare walls and parental controls to be
sufficient to manage the issue for hosted apps.

4\. But, nonsensically, they don't.

~~~
ErrantX
Your logic doesn't hold. It doesn't matter what age advisories they put in
place the parents can directly blame them for content in the app store.

This way they can _legally_ wash their hands of it. Simple as.

Your taking two seperate issues and turnig them into one.

~~~
jfager
Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that you thought they would try
to censor material served by 3rd parties if they could, as that was their
vision for the platform. That's hard to square with the idea that you've been
talking about Apple's censorship of apps they host as some sort of minimal
grounds for absolving themselves of legal responsibility.

On top of that, the content that sparked this discussion is clearly legal.
There's no possible way Apple would be in criminal danger from hosting it, and
I'm sure a civil suit wouldn't make it very far either, especially considering
the scare wall and the parental controls.

I guess I should also make it clear that I'm not suggesting Apple ought to
host illegal (or even borderline legal) content simply because it can be
accessed through a browser. Apple doesn't make the choice about what's legal,
and I just assumed it was understood that that was out of scope of the
discussion.

------
pavlov
I demand that Apple immediately censor all apps that give access to art from
the world's greatest museums. As it stands, innocent children can be exposed
to trash such as this gay-kissing piece in the Louvre:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiss_Briseis_Painter_Louvr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiss_Briseis_Painter_Louvre_G278_full.jpg)

~~~
ErrantX
Applying the same (Apple) rules to that image as has been to these panels I
don't think anything would be censored.

------
nnutter
Images suggesting oral sex, hand jobs, and anal sex... I would ban it too.

~~~
jrockway
I think people figured all this stuff out without the aid of a comic on the
app store.

------
cabalamat
Maybe Apple should be required to trade under the name "We Hate Our Customers'
Freedom And Are Actively Working To Destroy It".

------
dazzawazza
Two men kissing is an act of love not pornography.

Having said that, Apple has a right to (IMHO) censor these derivative works,
it's their platform, take it or leave it.

If they wanted to censor the original text I would have a problem with that as
it would, in some ways, be an attempt to rewrite history through the prism of
corporate sensitivities. It would be better for them to not publish the text.

~~~
sambeau
Did you even look at the pictures in the article?

It shows two naked men having sex in various ways - one kneeling while
removing the other's underwear, in another scene they are sitting on a chair
stroking each others penises.

I have nothing against men having sex or pictures of men having sex. However,
I cannot think of many main-stream shops that would stock such pictures - even
most book shops would consider this pornographic.

I would rather my children didn't have to confront this yet, too. At least let
them wait until they are sexual.

It is completely reasonable for Apple to reject this from THEIR shop.

~~~
jrockway
_I would rather my children didn't have to confront this yet, too._

Won't someone _please_ think of the adults?

You have to be over 17 to buy the app anyway, and parental controls let you
explicitly block this sort of app. Plus, if your kids want to see naked men
having sex, well... let me tell you about this little thing called the
Internet. It's directly accessible in the "safari" app, and it contains porn.
Oh so much porn.

Anyway, I am tired of "for the children". It's not for the children, it's for
the prudes.

~~~
sambeau
I do see you your point. And I don't disagree. I also don't think that this
graphic novel is offensive - it looks interesting, well written and well
drawn. It is certainly art, not porn.

However I can't see how Apple can curate for quality without also curating for
taste. To run a store like this no doubt means employing hundreds of young
testers and a bunch of draconian policies. To get them to understand the
subtlety between art and porn (or good porn and bad porn) is no doubt asking
too much. To do it in a way that will not enrage prudes, governments,
religious types, anyone who wants to bash Apple for any other reason etc is
something else entirely.

To set up a good 18+ store in this way will be nigh-on impossible without
either dropping all rules (and therefore all quality) or risking the wrath of
the moral majority.

Having the occasional piece of genuine art rejected to walk this fine line is
no doubt seen as a reasonable compromise.

I hope that Apple can fix this - but I'm not sure they will be able.

------
ryanhuff
Considering the number of young kids that now carry iPod Touches, and Apple's
aspirations of overtaking the Nintendo DS as a kids gaming device, I think
this is part of Apple trying to be careful about what it exposes children to.
They don't want their products to carry a stigma with parents.

~~~
tjmaxal
The idea that Apple is worried about what it exposes kids to is apparent in
the "over 17" pop up.

The idea that Apple is worried about exposing kids to gay sex is just
laughable.

~~~
drivebyacct
This just in, kissing = gay sex. Also, tjmaxal is defending apple and
homophobia up and down this thread.

~~~
ryanhuff
Despite your personal views of whether this material is suitable for general
consumption, wouldn't you agree that many parents would have concerns with
their kids having access to the material presented in this comic?

~~~
drivebyacct
Yes. This is not reason enough for Apple to censor it which is what this
discussion boils down to. Is it okay for Apple to censor interracial couples
in comics? Come on, this is the 21st century. Apple has no place censoring
this. Should we have a homo-flag to qualify apps as suitable or not suitable
for bigots?

