Apple pulled another app from iTunes

And in our next story on why App Stores are a bad idea, we have this from the Huffington Post:

The Manhattan Declaration, a controversial app condemning gay marriage, sparked outrage when Apple approved the app for inclusion in its App Store, finding that it contained "no objectionable material."

Earlier this week, The Huffington Post wrote about the app, which critics have called "anti-gay" for "[boiling] LGBT people down to little more than deviant cretins." Several days later, the app was no longer available in the App Store, and it seems Apple has quietly removed the app. (We've contacted the creators of the app for a comment.)

I don't know which bothers me more., that Apple are censoring someone or that they are too incompetent to block the app _before_ it gets in to iTunes.

About Nate Hoffelder (11790 Articles)
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

5 Comments on Apple pulled another app from iTunes

  1. How does this show that app stores are a bad idea? Walled gardens controlled by Big Brother, maybe. But not App stores in general.

  2. While we have publicly applauded Steven Jobs’ stance to not allow objectionable material such as pornography on his site, we question whether denying the Manhattan Declaration app is the first step in scrubbing all faith-based content from the site.

    • What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you like it when he bans porn you can’t complain when you get banned.

      They’re simply banning objectionable material. Since you think it’s okay to ban content, you have no right to complain when the rule is turned against you.

  3. Mrawhimskell klaar // 29 November, 2010 at 8:17 pm // Reply

    What worries me is the fact that that term “Objectionable Material” is one big blanket that can be spread over anything anyone or any group of people dislike(s). The so called Freedom of Speech does have its bounds though.

  4. Apple is a publicly held company and has the right not to sell, endorse, or promote anything that it sees fit that may hurt it’s brand image. In fact, it has an obligation to do so.

    They are also selling products, not freedom of speech. What would be the wrong thing is the US Government, State Government, or another local entity telling Apple it could not sell this app. That is what violates their Freedom of Speech.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Pay wall apps versus free speech « world journalism review

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: