Thank You, Apple. No, Seriously.

Apple Denies Free Political Speech

As you can see not only are none of the statements defamatory, they are all factual.

By denying me this application Apple is now making an in-kind contribution to Henry Waxman by denying his competitor a modern tool for political communication. They are stifling my right to free political speech and they are carrying water for the Obama administration.

It is also relevant to note that Apple pulled all of their advertising from the Fox News channel: http://galiberal.com/?p=8939&cpage=1

Clearly people who work at Apple are likely to be the kind of creative people who may tend to vote Democrat and hold liberal views, but this goes far beyond that. This experience with Apple clearly shows that there is a political agenda going on within the culture of the company, and business decisions are subject to Apple’s political views.

First, I need to state this: Democrat, Republican, a pox on both their houses! I voted for Nader — every time.

That said, this is one time I’d like the Republican to win. Because he’s now pissed off. And pissed off politicians who get into power do something about what pissed them off.

In iAd Is The Coming Fall Of Apple, I wrote:

The thing is this, Apple. Once you start rejecting political ads, you’re going to wake up all those slumbering politicians who haven’t been giving your plans any scrutiny.

I had never considered that a politician would want to advertise via an app. So this speeds up Apple’s day of reckoning.

Thank you, Apple. Keep riding that Gatekeeper Abuse express train.

Additional:

A Note To All Corporate Ass-Kissers

Previously at Mike Cane 2008:

Apple Forfeits eBooks By Banning A Comic Book!
Apple And A Tale Of Two Bannings
Apple Bans ANOTHER Book From App Store!
Apple Approves Of Shooting Nurses In The Face!

Previously at The eBook Test:

Apple: Get The Hell Out Of Your Own Way!
Another Day, Another DoubleDumb Apple Book Rejection!
Apple’s Two-Faced Censorship At Work Again
A REAL Justification For Apple Censorship?

Previously here:

The Latest Outrageous Apple Book Rejection!
Apple: Think What Now?
Apple Rescinds Book Ban
Steve Jobs: Keep Saying No!
Apple Is Scaring Publishers And Writers
Steve Jobs: Abandoning A Principle?
Dear Steve Jobs …
Cory Doctorow Was Right
When Steve Jobs Wrote A Letter
The Trillion-Dollar Web Question
“What Are My Options?”

31 responses to “Thank You, Apple. No, Seriously.

  1. Andrew Meit

    AMEN!
    I would love to have congress ask why Apple turned down RunRev after they made the most effort to offer to meet 331 guidelines.
    I am currently listening on ipod to Art of War (Giles translation) and boy do I hear echos of Steve. However, am not sure Steve understands the terrible history about abuse of power for remember he never got a proper liberal arts edu; So, he will repeat history.

  2. Not just RunRev. There was also Scratch, which was a language used in schools with children!

  3. Andrew Meit

    Indeed, for if I remember, Scratch had roots in or was based on Squeak which is a modern version of Smalltalk, the language which helped create the Parc Star OS and apps which Jeff Raskin knew well which became the basis of Mac os 1.0 which Jobs hijacked.
    Btw, Smalltalk came out of Allan Kay’s dream to empower kids to program in a natural way. He saw programming as just another mode of self-expression like writing. Something no one at that time cared about and sadly remains so today. Kay was interested in the human interface to programming; as far as I can tell, thats something Jobs never understood nor wanted — ever.
    Over the last few months I am really beginning to understand why Woz left and never looked back. And eventually Kay left and Tessler — the old gang from PARC. How truly sad for the rest of us.

  4. Obviously, what that Republican politician had to say in his iPhone app was PORN.

    The Republicans have sucked big time lately.

  5. Apple has nothing to fear.

    Censuring by refusing to sell a particular app is not much different from what websites commonly do when they subject comments to moderation and eliminate those which are profane or excessively offensive according to their own estimation. You may not like it or know the precise rules of moderation, but there is nothing wrong with a website exercising their right to determine the content they provide.

  6. What’s wrong with web apps? As long as iPhones and iPads come with Safari, no freedoms are curtailed. Sexual porn or political smut, it doesn’t matter.

  7. Yeah, get the politician riled but these are just prostitutes they sell themselves to the highest bidders and self serving.

    Do they care, yeah, only themselves and will do anything to get elected not to serve the people but themselves.

    Judging from the rant of this clown he is no different and serving the people? you be the judge.

  8. I’m not sure what the laws are like in this area in the U.S., but here in Australia I’m quite sure that there is no law requiring someone to put posters supporting any particular political party in their shopfront. Nor is there any requirement that they stock material from any political party, nor push any particular political barrow that they don’t wish to push. Furthermore, I’m not really sure why you would want the App store polluted with an infestation of political ads of any type – surely you get enough of that on your television, radio and web coverage. If you are going to force commercial entities to accept political advertising that they don’t wish to accept then where does that leave your democracy? A very peculiar point of view that you have – is it a common one in the U.S. to wish to have MORE political advertising? I know that here in Australia, most people would probably be happy to never see a political advertisments again. However, may I suggest that if it makes you so sincerely unhappy, then perhaps iPad is not for you. Feel free to try something else, I’m sure Apple won’t be upset, and you could probably make a profit by selling your iPad on eBay.

  9. As usual, people outside the USA have no understanding of American free speech issues. So all of you should really just stop looking like whipped dogs with your Comments.

  10. >>>Yeah, get the politician riled but these are just prostitutes they sell themselves to the highest bidders and self serving.

    Why I voted for Nader.

  11. That is so.

  12. >>>The Republicans have sucked big time lately.

    Since at least the 1980s. And the Dems since around the 1970s. A pox on them both.

  13. Maybe Kay can persuade Jobs to get *some* sort of language on the iPad. It makes no sense for there not to be something like HyperCard on it. Even if Apple refuses to distribute the apps, at least allow the kids to swap them via iTunes syncing by themselves under teacher supervision.

  14. Why exactly would it be OK for you guys to filter and restrict comments posted to your website (via your process of “moderation”) but not all right for Apple to decide what apps are suitable to be sold in its own App Store?

  15. Are there limits to free speech? ( Not in aggressive response to your words but in curiosity, mind you : )

    On what principles is the American free speech built upon?

    Can I begin a public speech in a public library? Does the librarian have a right to stop me? Or do the speech at 4:00am from my apartment window? Are my neighbours powerless?

    Or could I accost the customers of Walmart inside a Walmart store to persuade them about the evils of consumerism and Walmart in particular? Does Walmart have any rights here against someone intent on destroying their business?

    Is the App store a private domain or a public one?

    Or more importantly do others have any right in their private domains to stop me from invading their sensitivities?

    Can an author demand that all publishers take their work or is it a selective process dependent on factors outside of the freedom of speech?

    Is slander, bigotry, deceit, etc acceptable?

    Does one have a responsibility in propagating such or do we absolve ourselves?

    Then is litigation, boycotting, bans, etc acceptable consequences to society?

    A common assumption is that Free Speech comes along with boon companions Integrity, Responsibility and with Self Discipline.

    For example, if trolls are banned from forums, is it a step back for free speech even if the environ is the better for it thru effective moderation?

    : ) if free speech is truly a platform essential to the App store, then you will need to work on Apple to change their ways. Its still early days yet.

    I feel that the App store being a commercial medium accessible only thru Apple iPhone /iPad ecosystem would limit a true and freely open discourse but of course you are free to disagree with me here and I would defend your right to disagree but only on the internet ; )

  16. Andrew Meit

    Well, Kay, I suspect, learned the hard way how much he could influence Jobs. They’re currently sorta friendly, just Kay respects the limits of that friendship when it comes to products at Apple.

    If Jobs were to actually write code I think he would understand better why something like HC is really still needed and is part of the user-experience Jobs keeps seeking. I am doubtful he ever would.

    A historical footnote:
    Tessler used to come to work at PARC with the t-shirt: Don’t mode* me in.
    I think that statement still has value now. ;-)

    * look in google for background on that for those who are too young to know better ;-)

  17. See, this is where people like you lose. You do a speech and then EXPECT me to go point by point. Fuck off.

  18. That is what a series of courts might decide, isn’t it?

  19. anti-duche

    I just posted a comment knowing full well what you would do – BLOCK IT.

    Your crying about freedom of speech yet you just blocked/rejected a comment I posed.

    What about my freedom of speech, or are you now gonna take the ‘this is my blog, my property, I’ll block what I like’ approach.

    I don’t expect you to approve this comment either as it will expose what a hypocritical knob you really are.

    Just incase (you see the error of your ways) and it does get approved. To the reader who are curious what the comment that was blocked said…

    …it described Mr Cane as a d……..bag and accused him very strongly how he lacked the understanding of freedom.

  20. Oh, I didn’t Block it, I marked it as Spam, because there was no content in it and the ID, like now, was obviously made up for the occasion.

    What you are missing here is that if I don’t publish a Comment — and it’s very rare that I don’t (and even when I do, sometimes I have no reply, that’s just how it is) — I’m not depriving you any ability to *earn a living*.

  21. anti-duche

    I’d take your word for it that you rarely block posts but that doesn’t help your cause, it’s still a block or as you freetards like to call it “censorship”.

    It’s also very rare Apple blocking an App, its a tiny fraction that gets blocked (1 tenth of 1% as Apple likes to put it) in comparison to the hundreds of thousands that gets approved. Just look at the App store for confirmation.

    What is so wrong with me using an ID that “fits the occasion”?

    Nor is Apple depriving anyone from earning a living, they pick and choose who may or may not earn a living on their property but they do not deprive anyone of earning a living. These’s a difference.

    See Apple is a corporation, and as a corporation it enjoys the same freedom rights as a citizen, ie picking and choosing what is being sold in/on it’s property.

    I love how freetards bang on about freedom for all without recognising Apple freedom. Hypocrites.

  22. >>>See Apple is a corporation, and as a corporation it enjoys the same freedom rights as a citizen, ie picking and choosing what is being sold in/on it’s property.

    Oh, then you must love the change that allows these imaginary entities to outspend all of the citizens of our nation in order to bend the electoral process to their will. Yep, your grasp of freedom is as warped as I expected. Thanks for playing, though.

  23. anti-duche

    Haha love the way you avoided all the above arguments that I used to rip your logic apart. Especially your freetard hypocrisy.

    Secondly these “entities” are not imaginary they are real, I do not understand why you think corporations as imaginary. Do you not go outside your house?

    Secondly the corporations are also citizens as they are run by citizens and benefits citizens. Eg Apple earns money and it pays it employees, who in turn feed their family with it.

    Furthermore and most importantly corporations also pay taxes just like citizens thus have every right to the same freedom and rights to have say in how it’s government is run.

    Where do you freetards get this idea that corporations don’t benefit society.

    Look at the rest of the world, especially the countries that are not lucky enough to have large corporations as America – see how poor and low standard of living they have.

    Again this goes to this crappy freetardrdy idea that everyone is free to have a say as long as it confirms to the their ideology. Which is not that much different from a fascist system, but at least a fascist doesn’t try to hide that fact.

    If anyone should give up it’s you. You’re way out of your leagues. You obviously lack life experience or are just plain stupid.

  24. Listen, you. You are beyond hope. There is no getting through your psychosis.

  25. Ok , so you labeled with “psychosis” without any rebuttal to argue against my points. Unlike you I took on each and every one of your points with a reply.

    The truth is so easy to defend, so maybe you should ask yourself why you find it so difficult to defend your stance.

    Let people read this and see how stupid you sound now.

    Geeees what a DUCHE! Bye.

  26. Gee thanks for telling me I look like a whipped dog. Rather than try to explain why you are upset to those who really don’t ‘get it’ you would rather just insult me. I guess opinions other than your own are not welcome here. No problem, I won’t be back.
    Thanks
    Baz

  27. It’s rhetoric, so there’s no need to answer but obviously poorly done so I do apologise for the aggravation which it is not meant.

  28. PLEASE let this be goodbye for real.

  29. Go read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It’s about SPEECH. (And no one better bring up the canard that it only applies to *government* — you think our Founders could foresee a day with multinational corporations subverting the entire nation?)

  30. Andrew Meit

    Footnote:
    If I recall history of economics rightly, for whatever many reasons folks don’t like the Puritans, they originally wanted to outlaw and severely restrict the role, structure, and relationship of corporations to the communities long time before the formal 13 colonies came into being. It was not until the enriching slave trade that the many early colonies started to undo those protective laws about corporations. I think rightly the Puritans feared the growing power corporations *could* have. These folks were not dumb by any means.
    To paraphrase A. Kay via Meit, before you can invent the future, you have to learn and respect the past. This is the golden rule of all *real* change and innovation.

  31. That’s an aspect of the Puritans I’m unfamiliar with. There was a Lincoln quote about corporations, but looking it up proved it a fabrication:
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C0DEFDE133BEE33A25750C0A9669D94679ED7CF

    But he did say:
    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

    How like today!