4 ms·
I don't get it. The piece quotes Jobs as suggesting that Apple will exercise the same amount of censorship as a broadcast-TV network. The broadcast networks see
by gabrielroth 17y ago
I don't get it. The piece quotes Jobs as suggesting that Apple will exercise the same amount of censorship as a broadcast-TV network. The broadcast networks seem to be reasonably good at not allowing really extreme stuff without getting in trouble for first-amendment violations. (Controversies crop up every few years, like the recent one about abortion and the Super Bowl, but no one suggests that they pose an existential threat to the networks.) Why would this be any harder for Apple?
Given the failure to address this obvious question, I found the self-satisfied tone of the piece pretty obnoxious.
The question is, will it take all of Apple down with it?
The answer is, No, it won't.
- drewcrawford 17y agoYou have no first amendment rights against a private company (well, not in this case anyway). >> Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_S...