Users who Dugg This
Cecil Helton
12879 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
CourageWolf
6888 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
rufiohoDec 30, 2010
good for them, the world should be kind and loving yo!
thoughtsonthisDec 30, 2010
I agree with you, rufioho.
fleischnerDec 30, 2010
This sucks. Apple obviously has the right to do it, but it sucks that they've decided certain opinions should simply not be allowed (no matter what that opinion is).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegagsDec 30, 2010
Nothing like hate speech and kicking people while they are down.
chefgroovyDec 31, 2010
What if they decide they don't want anything on there related to veganism because it offends meat eaters?
Ah well, fortunately I don't have to worry about it, I won't even install quicktime on my computer. Don't trust Apple at allComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kinserDec 30, 2010
Its not an opinion, its religion trying to oppress groups of people. Its like if the KKK had an app.
weirddemonDec 30, 2010
That's not even close to the same thing.
bdog2g2Dec 31, 2010
No...it pretty much is.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
Your right, not close but exactally the same. Maybe your hood is on backwards. The eye holes are in the front of the sheet.
ncgmacDec 31, 2010
You maybe right, but even the KKK has freedom of speech. The problem here is someone deciding what is "worthy" of being said and what is "not worthy." What's next? We decide we disagree on Christmas and remove it's name, Christmas trees, or manger scenes? We decide to disagree with athiests and take down their billboards? We decide to disagree with PETA and remove their smokin' hot naked babe protesters?
Living in a free world is simple. If you don't like what someone is saying or doing, don't involve yourself with them. However, silence their views in favor of your own and you may soon find yourself silenced somewhere down the road.
ncmusicDec 31, 2010
I'm with you, pretty much screw censorship of any kind.
cosinezeroDec 30, 2010
Intolerance should never be tolerated.
To be clear here, you're criticising Apple for not tolerating intolerance.
weirddemonDec 30, 2010
Ugh... you're not clever and no one cares. Quit grasping for attention, overly-excited foster child.
ncmusicDec 31, 2010
The criticism is over censorship period.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
Sorry yo, hate is not an option. Stupidity shouldn't be one either.
booshtukkaDec 31, 2010
You can't say "Sorry yo" and then say stupidity should not be an option.
brentbyingtonDec 30, 2010
can't promote censorship, but thankfully apple is censoring pretty equally
weirddemonDec 30, 2010
You're either an idiot or you don't browse the app store.
spazattack5000Dec 30, 2010
Allowing this would set a precedent that would allow more and more hate spewing apps in the future. Of course someone would have to be pretty stupid to use an app like this anyway.
tompoDec 30, 2010
Do we really live in 21st century?
zachary0611Dec 30, 2010
Does the Klan have an app? lol
sethellisDec 30, 2010
I guess censorship is ok as long as it supports a liberal agenda and or is done by Apple.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
anti-hate = liberal? good to know..
decayoDec 30, 2010
Censorship is only bad if done by the government. Other than that it is just a case of someone choosing not to host something they had no obligation to host in the first place.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
Stick it hater
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
As an atheist, I strongly disagree with Apple on this - it is not Apples job to decide what people can watch or read or do on their devices.
I completely disagree with the content of the message and with the religious mythological nonsense, but I have no problems defending their rights to hold and promote them as long as no laws are broken.,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
decayoDec 30, 2010
Apple is not allowing the message to be hosted on its app store, it is not preventing that message from being viewed on its device. This is a HUGE distinction. An iPhone user can just as easily go to this organization's web site to view the message. Apple has no moral or legal obligation to host ANYTHING on its private servers.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Exactly - US laws allow them to censor - it is not a goof thing to allow.
The US have never had and will never have, free speech!
lazy6pyroDec 30, 2010
How is it censorship? You can open up Safari and browse to their website. I'm sure the App will be on Cydilla for those who jailbreak their iOS devices. An app is only one, minute, method that this organization can use to get it's method out...not all of them.
Censorship does NOT equal convenience!
US law of free speech only applies to public areas. When you enter someone's property (the App store...not the phone itself), you abide by their rules.
macparrotDec 30, 2010
You missed the point of what he said. If Apple had somehow made it completely impossible to view the Manhatten Declaration on their iOS devices you'd be right. However (just like porn) if you really want to view this document (or porn) it isn't that hard to do so. Apple isn't beholden to anyone as far as the iOS App Store goes other than their shareholders and if they don't want a particular app for ANY particular reason there isn't anything you, I, or the US Govt can say about it. If it really bothers you don't buy iOS devices.
Also you seem a little confused over the difference between the US Govt and Apple. One makes and enforces laws, collects taxes, has a standing military, and negotiates on behalf of its citizens with other foriegn powers. The other makes gadgets that no one is forcing you to buy.
As far as free speech goes, when Bush da second was in office, there were thousands and thousands of people everyday who would bore many people senseless on how terrible he was, an awful President, guilty of countless illegal acts and so on. No one shut them down or had them arrested unless they made a direct threat against the President. Now there are many who do the same with Obama da First. N one is censoring or shutting them down either. You can say pretty much whatever you want in the US as long as you don;t make a credible threat against the lives of others. What more do you want?
raynevandunemDec 30, 2010
It's just like any forum/mailing list/newsgroup or blog on the Web. Moderators or admin have (at least) the ability to censor posts which are considered as being against the spirit of discussion or civility among members.
Unless you (or someone else) are going to advocate a cross-corporate "First Amendment" which does not have the force of law (as that would be illegal and technically unenforceable) but has the influence of soft money, you'll have a hard time comprehensibly advocating against a very fundamental aspect about the Internet: there are no "public" websites which are totally obligated to host any content whatsoever, and no user has the fundamental right to post any content whatsoever.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
Oh shut the f...k up.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
This would be a "hate crime" which is already against the law. You shame the rest of us atheists.
hipmanDec 31, 2010
You shame the rest of us who know what the definition of "hate crime" is.
stubearDec 30, 2010
I love it. People whine when the banks decided to not help fund WikiLeaks but are now whining when Apple "censors" an app. Pick your position people. Either we allow corporations to do what they want or we force then to follow logical, equitable rules of conduct. You don't get to pick and choose.
kinserDec 30, 2010
Wikileaks should not be censored because its just doing what is right, if it was spouting hate speech, then yes it should be censored. Hate speech should not be protected speech.
This religious app? Its on par with the westburo crap and everyone knows that stuff should never see public eye.
stubearDec 30, 2010
Free speech should be protected for ALL regardless of the message. When you start defining categories like hate speech you head down a slippery slope whereby any group can now lobby for protection under hate speech laws, thus criminalizing speech. Your right to ignore me still exists and you should use this, not legislation, to silence what someone says that you do not wish to hear.
lazy6pyroDec 30, 2010
"Free speech should be protected for ALL regardless of the message."
That includes corporations, too.
rgb86Dec 30, 2010
What about threats of violence and the famous "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater"? Should that be protected as well?
lazy6pyroDec 31, 2010
Don't confuse "I hate you" with "I'm going to kill you". One shows emotions and an opinion which is perfectly legal; the other shows intent to commit an illegal act.
rgb86Dec 31, 2010
You're missing the point. The OP was saying that all speech should be protected, but my point is that there are certain types of speech that nearly everyone will find unacceptable, so that you *must* start defining categories, as he puts it, of what is and is not acceptable.
stubearDec 31, 2010
There's a big difference when trying to cause physical harm to one's person or livelihood (you forgot libel and slander) and trying to hurt someone's feelings. Calling someone a fag does not warrant censorship. Telling someone to go kill toe fag does.
rgb86Dec 31, 2010
Well, you're the one who said that all manner of speech should be protected. What I'm trying to point out is that there are some situations where speech shouldn't be protected. The consequence of this is that there inherently must be a distinction, which forces the issue of where you draw the line, which has been the main issue all along. Directly threatening violence against someone is--I believe we're both in agreement on this--over the line of acceptable behavior. But how about advocating for harming someone without a direct threat? Or calling for the mistreatment of others in a manner that falls just short of harm?
Or put more plainly:
"I'm going to kill you because you're a fag."
"Someone needs to go kill that fag."
"Don't let him in your store; he's gay."
"I don't like homosexuals."
Somewhere in those statements is where the line must be drawn. I think we're both in agreement that the first is past it, and that the last should be protected, but where exactly do you draw the line in the middle?
I'm just trying to point out that it's nice to be idealistic and say "all speech should be protected," but nearly everyone will agree that there will always be some types of speech which are unacceptable.
pinkfish411Dec 31, 2010
The line should probably be drawn somewhere around the point that we're inciting others to commit acts that are already against the law of the land. No speech should be outlawed just because it's offensive. The only ambiguous exception is when speech is being used to intentionally inflict real emotional harm to someone else (and that is most definitely NOT what the signers of the Manhattan Declaration were attempting to do).
pinkfish411Dec 31, 2010
Translation: Wikileaks should not be censored because I agree with their message. If it was sending a message I didn't agree with, then it should be censored.
The Manhattan Declaration is nothing like what's put out by WBC, other than that it calls into question the morality of homosexual marriage. When a big part of the country still shares that uncertainty about homosexual marriage, the attempt to paint all opposing opinions as "hate speech" that needs to be censored is nothing better than fascism. If your ideas are better than those of the Manhattan Declaration, let the ideas win out in the marketplace of ideas--the whole idea behind free speech in the first place.
abaydenDec 30, 2010
This post does two things.
1) Raise publicity about the Manhattan Declaration. A positive post about it would not have been able to make it into Digg's top posts.
2) Associates the Manhattan Declaration with resistance to corporate censorship.
3) Gives conservative Christians an idea to boycott Apple. It's not like Androids, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones are totally lame.
utinamDec 31, 2010
So, are we supposed to choose the top 2?? Can I phone a friend?
TomHanks4Dec 30, 2010
Apple has put themselves in a position where they will be upsetting some people no matter what they do. If they allow this kind of thing, it may be taken as endorsement, which pisses off people who don't like it. If they refuse it, they piss off the people who support the ideas and also those who support free speech/allowing all ideas even when they don't agree with them.
diesel828Dec 31, 2010
Guys, it's not all that surprising since Apple is very strict about what it puts in the App Store. I mean, sometimes excessive cleavage is enough to get an app banned. It's mind boggling which apps get approved and which don't, but this doesn't surprise me.
jusboblynDec 31, 2010
Apple is under no obligation of any kind to allow this sort of ignorance to be posted, promoted or sold on their private property. Call it what you will but props to Apple for doing the right thing. Sometimes the right thing gets you more grief than the easy thing. Hate is hate. Christian haters are still haters (and liars). See you in hell!
dinxcarinDec 31, 2010
I am a Christian. not wondering anymore why most of the people hate Christians or relilion hulabaloos . Way to go Steve Jobs! I'm with you.
zbeastDec 31, 2010
Apple has killed or blocked lot's of apps that I would like to have.
Torrent clients, tethering clients, music clients (groveshark).
Good to see them finally blocking an app that I can agree with them blocking.
angrycat70Dec 31, 2010
You can be a large flaming douche on your own time.
That doesn't obligate private companies to carry your douche-baggery.
stevethepocketJan 1, 2011
So what exactly is the app? Because from the wording of the article it sounds like it's just a document. I've seen bigger wastes of app, but that's still pretty absurd.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that this is different from if they banned a Bible app. There are some pretty hateful statements in the Bible if you know where to look. People like to pretend those words aren't in there, or that they don't really mean what they pretty plainly state. Maybe because they'd have to admit that their own religion might be wrong...