4 ms·

Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-

by ktizo 14y ago

Or rejecting apps by pulitzer prize winning political cartoonists for "Ridiculing Public Figures" - http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-pulitzer-but-not-the-app-store/ http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/15/when-youre-good-enough-for-a-...

pooriaazimi 14y ago
Jobs responded to that case at D8 conference. He said it was a mistake ("We had a rule: you can't defame people. We thought it was sane to have such a rule, but the problem is that political cartoons, by definition, defame politicians. So, we made an exception for political cartoons") and they soon changed their guidelines to let the app in, but the developer never bothered to re-submit the app.
- ktizo 14y ago
  That app isn't defamatory though. Caricature isn't defamatory without associated symbolism or represented actions to make claims about the individual represented. Drawing a silly picture isn't enough, you would have to draw a picture of someone doing something negative that they do not do, in a way that implies to the viewer that this person really does this thing and that you are not just joking about it.
tripzilch 14y ago
Well that's the problem eh, you can't do censorship without bumping into hypocrisy (be it on the left or the right side). UPDATE: NYT is reporting Mr. Fiore has been "encouraged" by Apple to re-submit. So the lesson here? Win a Pulitzer, get a 2nd chance at the App Store. Cute. Also this part, so very clearly underlines the reason why so many people start screaming about slippery slopes as soon as censorship enters the picture (even though the article's author does not seem to realize this): Look Apple, I supported some of your bans in the past -- like your ban on sexy junk apps -- but political cartooning is *slightly* different. First they came for the "sexy junk" apps, but I didn't speak out ...

by ktizo 14y ago

pooriaazimi 14y ago

Jobs responded to that case at D8 conference. He said it was a mistake ("We had a rule: you can't defame people. We thought it was sane to have such a rule, but the problem is that political cartoons, by definition, defame politicians. So, we made an exception for political cartoons") and they soon changed their guidelines to let the app in, but the developer never bothered to re-submit the app.

ktizo 14y ago
That app isn't defamatory though. Caricature isn't defamatory without associated symbolism or represented actions to make claims about the individual represented. Drawing a silly picture isn't enough, you would have to draw a picture of someone doing something negative that they do not do, in a way that implies to the viewer that this person really does this thing and that you are not just joking about it.

tripzilch 14y ago

Well that's the problem eh, you can't do censorship without bumping into hypocrisy (be it on the left or the right side). UPDATE: NYT is reporting Mr. Fiore has been "encouraged" by Apple to re-submit. So the lesson here? Win a Pulitzer, get a 2nd chance at the App Store. Cute. Also this part, so very clearly underlines the reason why so many people start screaming about slippery slopes as soon as censorship enters the picture (even though the article's author does not seem to realize this): Look Apple, I supported some of your bans in the past -- like your ban on sexy junk apps -- but political cartooning is *slightly* different. First they came for the "sexy junk" apps, but I didn't speak out ...