Apple bans a comic book, firestorm ensues

[Sporkman]

Apple bans a comic book, firestorm ensues

Murderdrome is not Ulysses, Lolita or Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It’s a dark, bloody comic strip marked by the type of over-the-top violence that has made its genre so popular among young readers with a lot of pent-up rage.

But Murderdrome has now joined the pantheon of suppressed fiction as the first digital book banished from Apple’s App Store by censors in Cupertino....

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/08/27/apple-bans-a-comic-book-firestorm-ensues/

[Dixon Bainbridge]

I've always found it hard to understand what exactly censorship achieves. If you find something offensive, stop looking at it. I find Celine Dion offensive, so I don't listen to her music. I don't call for it to be banned from the radio though.

[Sporkman]

I find Celine Dion offensive

:lol:

[zmjjmz]

This is, once again, why we need the jailbreak community.

[zachtib]

I've always found it hard to understand what exactly censorship achieves. If you find something offensive, stop looking at it. I find Celine Dion offensive, so I don't listen to her music. I don't call for it to be banned from the radio though.

I agree with you 100% on that, but sadly, a lot of Americans (in particular) have adopted a "think of the children" mentality.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

I agree with you 100% on that, but sadly, a lot of Americans (in particular) have adopted a "think of the children" mentality.

The power of censorship should be with the individual, or in the case of children, the parents, not some corporate power or government agency. People are happy to hand over the power of censorship to these big faceless entities because it absolves them of blame if something goes wrong. Its easier to blame MegaCorp Inc, or some government depart for a failing.

What can you do, eh?

[Sporkman]

...then again, if I were to post hardcore pr0n imagery here at ubuntuforums.org, it would get deleted, and I would be sternly rebuked!

(Right mods? I mean, if not, let me know... I have a healthy inventory of material on my HD... I'm just saying....)

[Dixon Bainbridge]

...then again, if I were to post hardcore pr0n imagery here at ubuntuforums.org, it would get deleted, and I would be sternly rebuked!

(Right mods? I mean, if not, let me know... I have a healthy inventory of material on my HD... I'm just saying....)

Thats a different issue. By signing up to the forums, you agree to abide by the rules laid down by this forum community. I have no problems with groups declaring their boundaries - its personal choice whether to join said group. Society however, is always touted as being free. Simple fact is, its not. A free society will allow free exchanges of ideas and principles without censorship. If one person were to find a groups activities offensive, then they have the option not to participate in that group and find one that better matches their tastes and morals. What in fact happens is people from group A call for group B to be banned because they dont like what group B does. What the hell has it got to do with them? Thats the problem. People think they have the right to dictate and impose outside of their chosen peer group.

[uberdonkey5]

Well, it seems a bit crazy to censor the comic. However I think censorship may sometimes be important, even if people want to look at something. Scientists note that when we look at horrifying scenes or images the memory is stored in a different part of the brain. The suggestion is there is a special place for memories which may enable us to cope in survival situations (it may be one reason people stare at car-crashes... to see if they could/would do anything different... and also why we get frustrated in horror movies when people do stupid things like walking outside of their house when they hear something scary).

Therefore, people may be stimulated to look at horrific images, but I am not convinced that they are good for us psychologically. I do believe that sexual and violent images can sometimes have a negative effect on people (socially), but still I believe the individual is more important than the state, so censorship should only be used in more extreme cases (but should be used where money is being made from illegal activity such as child pornography or snuff movies or slap-happy videos (purposely commiting a crime of assault so it can be videod) etc).

(PS I know there is some irony of me using a dead penguin as a avatar)

[Bölvaður]

:lol:

and you honestly don't? :lolflag:

[sydbat]

To address Dixon Bainbridge's comments...the reason people allow others to do things is, as you mentioned, so someone else can be blamed when (not if) something goes wrong/it goes too far/etc/etc. That society in general (at least in North America) has taken the "I'm not personally responsible for anything" stance, is reprehensible.

I know people (unfortunately in my (dis)own(ed) family) who take no responsibility for their actions..."it was their fault"..."they made it like this"...you get the idea. When confronted with "who, exactly, are 'they'?", people with this mentality can NEVER tell you who.[/rant]

[days_of_ruin]

Apple = China

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Well, it seems a bit crazy to censor the comic. However I think censorship may sometimes be important, even if people want to look at something. Scientists note that when we look at horrifying scenes or images the memory is stored in a different part of the brain. The suggestion is there is a special place for memories which may enable us to cope in survival situations (it may be one reason people stare at car-crashes... to see if they could/would do anything different... and also why we get frustrated in horror movies when people do stupid things like walking outside of their house when they hear something scary).

Therefore, people may be stimulated to look at horrific images, but I am not convinced that they are good for us psychologically. I do believe that sexual and violent images can sometimes have a negative effect on people (socially), but still I believe the individual is more important than the state, so censorship should only be used in more extreme cases (but should be used where money is being made from illegal activity such as child pornography or snuff movies or slap-happy videos (purposely commiting a crime of assault so it can be videod) etc).

(PS I know there is some irony of me using a dead penguin as a avatar)

People often cite child pornography as a reason for censorship, and a justification for wider censorship of other, often unrelated things. This is a flawed argument. Censorship of material where the participant has be forced or coerced (ie in child pornography, snuff films, happy slapping) is acceptable because the material itself has been produced without the willing consent of the individual. Consent is the key. If someone consents to an activity, then it should be free of censorship. There is an argument that if a child consents to appear in a pornographic film then it is still unnacceptable, which is right, because the activity depicted in the film breaks fundamental laws regarding underage sex in most western countries. However, there are some societies in the world where such a thing would be acceptable. Its not for us to judge what is and what isnt in other societies. In other words, it all comes down to the groups and boundaries again.

[sydbat]

People often cite child pornography as a reason for censorship, and a justification for wider censorship of other, often unrelated things. This is a flawed argument. Censorship of material where the participant has be forced or coerced (ie in child pornography, snuff films, happy slapping) is acceptable because the material itself has been produced without the willing consent of the individual. Consent is the key. If someone consents to an activity, then it should be free of censorship. There is an argument that if a child consents to appear in a pornographic film then it is still unnacceptable, which is right, because the activity depicted in the film breaks fundamental laws regarding underage sex in most western countries. However, there are some societies in the world where such a thing would be acceptable. Its not for us to judge what is and what isnt in other societies. In other words, it all comes down to the groups and boundaries again.*Puts on flame retardant suit* To take the "Devil's Advocate" stance on this, the idea that to censor because consent was not explicitly given is flawed. This is exactly how censorship happens in the first place - person A perceives they have not given explicit consent to have Celine Dion (shudder) played on the radio and feels they are fully justified in trying to have her music banned from the airwaves.

It sucks, but this is the reality that we have to live with...people's perception of what is acceptable and what is not. The media doesn't help at all with their shoddy misleading/misinformed/rarely researched "reporting".

Censorship, when used in conjunction with existing laws, is justifiable (examples - child pornography, happy slapping, etc)...even if we do not fully agree with those laws (I do, especially for the examples cited). But to use those same laws in a twisted manner, in order to 'justify' banning Celine Dion, cannot be accepted (although I have prayed for a "Celine Dion Law").

Finally, a company has the right not to sell/show on their website (or anywhere in their publications/media), anything they feel is unacceptable to them. Otherwise, every company would have a "porn" section (possibly forced to have) on their websites...because aren't they all "consenting adults" in 'mainstream' pornography? *puts on second flame retardant layer*

Just my $.1/2...

[Dixon Bainbridge]

*Puts on flame retardant suit* To take the "Devil's Advocate" stance on this, the idea that to censor because consent was not explicitly given is flawed. This is exactly how censorship happens in the first place - person A perceives they have not given explicit consent to have Celine Dion (shudder) played on the radio and feels they are fully justified in trying to have her music banned from the airwaves.

We are of the same mind, there has just been a little misunderstanding with meaning. :) Your point about person A is right, it is exactly what I meant with the group A group B thing. People think its their right to impose their morals and outlook on other people they disapprove of. They have no right to do this, they just think they do. Most people think they have a right to do lots of things for "the greater good" but what this means is "their greater good".


It sucks, but this is the reality that we have to live with...people's perception of what is acceptable and what is not. The media doesn't help at all with their shoddy misleading/misinformed/rarely researched "reporting".

The media isnt interested in anything other than selling their brand of news. They'll take whatever side is most profitable.


Censorship, when used in conjunction with existing laws, is justifiable (examples - child pornography, happy slapping, etc)...even if we do not fully agree with those laws (I do, especially for the examples cited). But to use those same laws in a twisted manner, in order to 'justify' banning Celine Dion, cannot be accepted (although I have prayed for a "Celine Dion Law").

Its a matter of taste as well. Celine Dion is the antipathy of music to my tastes. I dont seek to have her banned because I dont think its my right to do so. I'm easy come easy go. If people want to listen to it, its their choice. My choice is not to listen to it. Too many people think that its ok to impose their tastes on other people. "I hate that therefore it should be banned."

[sydbat]

Celine Dion Lover!

I understood your points. That is why I tried (badly) to expand upon them.

I agree completely that "if you don't like it, change the damn channel". Unfortunately, some people tend to want things their way or not at all. These are the ones who cause the most vocal fuss, while the rest of us (~90%) are so stupefied by their reactions, we do nothing until it's too late...

[Polygon]

Thats a different issue. By signing up to the forums, you agree to abide by the rules laid down by this forum community. I have no problems with groups declaring their boundaries - its personal choice whether to join said group. Society however, is always touted as being free. Simple fact is, its not. A free society will allow free exchanges of ideas and principles without censorship. If one person were to find a groups activities offensive, then they have the option not to participate in that group and find one that better matches their tastes and morals. What in fact happens is people from group A call for group B to be banned because they dont like what group B does. What the hell has it got to do with them? Thats the problem. People think they have the right to dictate and impose outside of their chosen peer group.


by buying a ipod or iphone, you are agree to abide by the rules set down by apple.

by having no censorship at all, means that people would assume pornography and other untasteful things would pop up in the apple store, and then if apple banned that, they would ask why violent things are allowed, etc, and it would be a huge hassle for apple, especially since there is no rating system, so a 12-13 year old with a ipod touch or iphone could download porn or violent comics which their parents might not be ok with.

they would have to draw the line somewhere, since having overly violent or distasteful things, listed on the apple website would look bad for the company.

Of course, if you dont like this, don't buy an iphone/ipod touch. that simple.

[anunn2001]

...Finally, a company has the right not to sell/show on their website (or anywhere in their publications/media), anything they feel is unacceptable to them. Otherwise, every company would have a "porn" section (possibly forced to have) on their websites...because aren't they all "consenting adults" in 'mainstream' pornography? *puts on second flame retardant layer*

Just my $.1/2...


Finally, some common sense!

[aysiu]

As long as I have some reasonable way to access the content I want, I don't care if some company chooses not to be the outlet by which I access that content.

In other words, let's say I like the TV show Dexter. I want to see Dexter and find out what happens next.

If CBS wants to release a censored version of Dexter, I don't care as long as I can watch the uncensored version on Showtime. Even if Showtime decided it no longer wanted to show it on live TV any more, I wouldn't care as long as they kept releasing the DVD of it.

But if some government agency came along and said "No TV station can show Dexter and no distribution center is allowed to sell DVDs of Dexter," I'd be pissed. It's not up to some outside force to determine that I should have no reasonable way to access a show I want to see.

I've never heard of this Murderdrome thing before, but I don't blame Apple for not making it available in the app store, as long as people are still able to find other reasonable ways to read it should they wish to.

[Dremora]

I agree with you 100% on that, but sadly, a lot of Americans (in particular) have adopted a "think of the children" mentality.

Which is bull.

Our society is trying to ban "drugs" and "violence" and all material that references them.

It is trying to put every child in the country on Ritalin and other dangerous psychotropics in order to suppress their creativity, and make them emotionless conforming drones.

Yet when it comes time for a smash and grab operation to steal oil, suddenly violence is encouraged, and patriotic.

The whole idea of behavior modification on this level is ridiculous, because there were murderers before gangster rap and video games, people have used pot since at least 3,000 years ago, and still not one reported death.

The whole thing is not about stopping violence or drug use, it's about control.

[swoll1980]

I agree with you 100% on that, but sadly, a lot of Americans (in particular) have adopted a "think of the children" mentality.

What drives me nuts about the US is that we have a make war not love mentality. You can see people getting killed on every channel, but if the show some girls tit (Janet Jackson) The whole country falls to it's knees

[Dremora]

What drives me nuts about the US is that we have a make war not love mentality. You can see people getting killed on every channel, but if the show some girls tit (Janet Jackson) The whole country falls to it's knees

Now THAT, my friend, is just media sensationalism.

Humans have a hive mind, psychiatrists call it groupthink as kind of joke term, where even if something is obviously wrong, as long as a seeming majority says it is right, most people will knowingly betray their conscience and go with whatever the group says.

So if Jack Thompson can be a stupid prick, and get his spew all over the news, there will be millions who agree with him, just because it was all over the news.

[Riffer]

Which is bull.

Our society is trying to ban "drugs" and "violence" and all material that references them.

It is trying to put every child in the country on Ritalin and other dangerous psychotropics in order to suppress their creativity, and make them emotionless conforming drones.

Yet when it comes time for a smash and grab operation to steal oil, suddenly violence is encouraged, and patriotic.

The whole idea of behavior modification on this level is ridiculous, because there were murderers before gangster rap and video games, people have used pot since at least 3,000 years ago, and still not one reported death.

The whole thing is not about stopping violence or drug use, it's about control.

Wow that is one of the coolest conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

[billgoldberg]

I've always found it hard to understand what exactly censorship achieves. If you find something offensive, stop looking at it. I find Celine Dion offensive, so I don't listen to her music. I don't call for it to be banned from the radio though.

I wish more people had the same attitude you have.

--

I think some people just like to force the things they prefer onto others.

I don't know exactly why.

But I dislike it very much.

For crying out loud, were all adults, we can decide for ourself what we like or not.

And if you don't like something, don't listen/watch/... to it. If you happen to come across it, suck it up.
--

BTW, Celine Dion has some good songs (the one from titanic and a few others).

[Dremora]

Wow that is one of the coolest conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

And profit....

Even with safe prescription drugs, that have been used for hundreds of years, like Lithium, they're trying to replace that $5 a month medicine with dangerous, life threatening crap like "Abilify", which one of the side effects listed in it's TV ad is "increased risk of DEATH" after a mile of other ones.

It makes Eli Lilly $476 a bottle though, so they're trying to quietly kill off Lithium in favor of Abilify.

[billgoldberg]

What drives me nuts about the US is that we have a make war not love mentality. You can see people getting killed on every channel, but if the show some girls tit (Janet Jackson) The whole country falls to it's knees

Around here we would all laugh with a nip slip.

What kind of people are offended by it, I ask? Surely not people you want to be friends with.

[swoll1980]

Around here we would all laugh with a nip slip.

What kind of people are offended by it, I ask? Surely not people you want to be friends with.

I opened a thread on this in purple ponies

[sydbat]

Around here we would all laugh with a nip slip.

What kind of people are offended by it, I ask? Surely not people you want to be friends with.Absolutely not. But the vocal minority outweighs the silent majority. The comment about "groupthink" by Dremora hit it exactly right.

And the other comments by Dremora are not conspiracy theory...

[Spike-X]

Apple bans a comic book, firestorm ensues

It would be the height of irony if it was the Firestorm comic book.

[Spike-X]

...then again, if I were to post hardcore pr0n imagery here at ubuntuforums.org, it would get deleted, and I would be sternly rebuked!

(Right mods? I mean, if not, let me know... I have a healthy inventory of material on my HD... I'm just saying....)
Asking somebody to not shove pictures of naked women in somebody's face isn't censorship.

Telling me I can't look at pictures of naked women is censorship.

[frrobert]

I think I am going to get flamed but here goes.

First I am not an Apple fan and will not purchase their products but I do agree with their right to sell the products they want to sell.

Apple did not censor anyone or anything. They choose not to sell a particular product.

If I go into McDonald's I can get Coke products but not Pepsi products, that is not censorship. For whatever reason McDonald's sells coke products. It is their right as a business owner to select the products they want to sell whether they be Apple or McDonalds and I as a consumer have the right to purchase products from them or not.

Would anyone says ZaReason or System 76 is censoring because they only sell Linux based machines? I don't think so.

I sell web hosting that is lamp based. I do not sell Windows based web hosting. I choose to sell one product but not another. I have not censored anyones ability to get Windows based hosting if they want Windows based hosting they purchase it elsewhere.

Freedom of the market place goes both ways. Consumers have the freedom to purchase products from the companies they want and companies have freedom to sell the products they want.