5 ms·

Germany has a law about this, with some exceptions that would specifically apply to cases like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a ht

Germany has a law about this, with some exceptions that would specifically apply to cases like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a When a movie like Iron Sky has no problem being shown in German cinemas with the swastika left untouched, because it's clearly art, then it should be fairly obvious to Apple that banning historically accurate representations in historically accurate interactive art is far overreaching; though not legally, but ethically.

DasIch 11y ago
These exceptions might apply to cases such as this one, whether they do is unknown and no publisher has dared to find out. In practice all games that contain forbidden symbols get a German version in which these are replaced for example in the Wolfenstein franchise (that were not censored due to violence).
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Only because the german government, like any government, is old and slow, and as of yet does not classify computer games as art, citing the interactive aspect as an enabler of contextual reinterpretation; AND because many foreign game creators simply censor themselves proactively instead of taking this matter to court. There is a very reasonable expectation of this changing at some point in the future.
  - HarryHirsch 11y ago
    What the German courts are doing is enforcing the taboo on swastikas and anything else H*tler-related. I can understand why they are doing it and would like them to continue.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      You're being extremely vague to the point of making your comment a non-sequitur. Are you agreeing with the law exactly as it is written? (I am.) Are you agreeing with the interpretation of the law as it applies to computer games? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should be allowed the usage if the usage serves the art? (I do.)
      - claudius 11y ago
        > Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? It depends on the context. The computer game should not facilitate identification with Nazism (e.g. by the player flying that flag in a RTS or being a member of it in an FPS) or downplay the disastrous results of Nazism. So potentially I would be okay with a Wolfenstein-like game where the player operates strictly against these powers/symbols, but doing this consequently in online multi-player games seems difficult.
        Mithaldu 11y ago
        > It depends on the context. Exactly that is my point. :)
  - DasIch 11y ago
    The German government hasn't declared them not to be art either and as long as they haven't the real question is whether a court would consider them to be art. I think there is a very good chance that a court would consider them to be art but I don't see it coming to that anytime soon. A lot of gamers seem to be happy with versions that have these symbols replaced and everyone else simply imports them (which is as simple as ordering from amazon.co.uk instead of amazon.de). Publishers have simply no incentive to pursue this and because violence in games can be censored, publishers censor a lot of games on their own already anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that there are companies even profiting from the current situation.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      In this interview the OLJB makes it very clear what their stance is: http://www.pcgames.de/Panorama-Thema-233992/Specials/Spiele-sind-keine-Filme-Interview-mit-der-Obersten-Landesjugendbehoerde-1112254/ http://www.pcgames.de/Panorama-Thema-233992/Specials/Spiele-... (Even though, imo, the dude outright lies by stating that their interpretation of the law is what the law factually says.) Also, do note that i said at some point in the future.
      - DasIch 11y ago
        Right, I used government to broadly. Nevertheless that games are not art is the opinion of that agency. As you already mentioned there interpretation of the law is somewhat shaky here. Nevertheless to my understanding if a publisher were to get a game censored by the OLJB due to forbidden symbols, the publisher could go to court and I think they would have a decent chance at winning such a case.
        Mithaldu 11y ago
        I agree with the latter paragraph and stated so (implicitly) here in the last sentence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9778113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9778113
TillE 11y ago
Apple is quite explicitly uninterested in artistic expression on the app store. From the second paragraph in their guidelines: "We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App." Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is. US society has moved past moral panic over books and music. We're still in the thick of it with software (Brown vs. EMA was decided in 2011). Apple already chose to make themselves a certifying authority for software on other axes, so I don't find it surprising they sanitize content in the US-flavor of "family friendly" similar to other game consoles.
- sp332 11y ago
  Not just games, but any app.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech. Essentially they want to separate themselves from most existing legal precedent.
  - __z 11y ago
    What "legal precedent" are you referring to?
  - refurb 11y ago
    I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech Why would that end up in court? Apple is a private company. It's free to include/exclude whatever content it wants. Consumers don't have a right to force a company to provide the content they want.
sneak 11y ago
The App Store is about volume and profit and PR, not about providing a forum for art or expression. An app with pictures of classic paintings that happen to include nipples will not be approved for sale. After all, if you really want that kind of stuff, you can always install a different package manager and use someone else's selection of apps. Oh, wait.

DasIch 11y ago

These exceptions might apply to cases such as this one, whether they do is unknown and no publisher has dared to find out. In practice all games that contain forbidden symbols get a German version in which these are replaced for example in the Wolfenstein franchise (that were not censored due to violence).

Mithaldu 11y ago
Only because the german government, like any government, is old and slow, and as of yet does not classify computer games as art, citing the interactive aspect as an enabler of contextual reinterpretation; AND because many foreign game creators simply censor themselves proactively instead of taking this matter to court. There is a very reasonable expectation of this changing at some point in the future.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  What the German courts are doing is enforcing the taboo on swastikas and anything else H*tler-related. I can understand why they are doing it and would like them to continue.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    You're being extremely vague to the point of making your comment a non-sequitur. Are you agreeing with the law exactly as it is written? (I am.) Are you agreeing with the interpretation of the law as it applies to computer games? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? (I don't.) Do you think computer games should be allowed the usage if the usage serves the art? (I do.)
    - claudius 11y ago
      > Do you think computer games should never be allowed to contain historical symbols of forbidden groups? It depends on the context. The computer game should not facilitate identification with Nazism (e.g. by the player flying that flag in a RTS or being a member of it in an FPS) or downplay the disastrous results of Nazism. So potentially I would be okay with a Wolfenstein-like game where the player operates strictly against these powers/symbols, but doing this consequently in online multi-player games seems difficult.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        > It depends on the context. Exactly that is my point. :)
- DasIch 11y ago
  The German government hasn't declared them not to be art either and as long as they haven't the real question is whether a court would consider them to be art. I think there is a very good chance that a court would consider them to be art but I don't see it coming to that anytime soon. A lot of gamers seem to be happy with versions that have these symbols replaced and everyone else simply imports them (which is as simple as ordering from amazon.co.uk instead of amazon.de). Publishers have simply no incentive to pursue this and because violence in games can be censored, publishers censor a lot of games on their own already anyway. I would not be surprised to learn that there are companies even profiting from the current situation.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    In this interview the OLJB makes it very clear what their stance is: http://www.pcgames.de/Panorama-Thema-233992/Specials/Spiele-sind-keine-Filme-Interview-mit-der-Obersten-Landesjugendbehoerde-1112254/ http://www.pcgames.de/Panorama-Thema-233992/Specials/Spiele-... (Even though, imo, the dude outright lies by stating that their interpretation of the law is what the law factually says.) Also, do note that i said at some point in the future.
    - DasIch 11y ago
      Right, I used government to broadly. Nevertheless that games are not art is the opinion of that agency. As you already mentioned there interpretation of the law is somewhat shaky here. Nevertheless to my understanding if a publisher were to get a game censored by the OLJB due to forbidden symbols, the publisher could go to court and I think they would have a decent chance at winning such a case.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        I agree with the latter paragraph and stated so (implicitly) here in the last sentence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9778113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9778113

TillE 11y ago

Apple is quite explicitly uninterested in artistic expression on the app store. From the second paragraph in their guidelines: "We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical App." Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is.

forgottenpass 11y ago
Their stance makes very little sense (arbitrarily dividing games away from books or films), but there it is. US society has moved past moral panic over books and music. We're still in the thick of it with software (Brown vs. EMA was decided in 2011). Apple already chose to make themselves a certifying authority for software on other axes, so I don't find it surprising they sanitize content in the US-flavor of "family friendly" similar to other game consoles.
sp332 11y ago
Not just games, but any app.
Someone1234 11y ago
I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech. Essentially they want to separate themselves from most existing legal precedent.
- __z 11y ago
  What "legal precedent" are you referring to?
- refurb 11y ago
  I strongly suspect they wrote that expressively in case a court ever looks at Apple's policies, and needs to decide if Apple is silencing art/freedom of speech Why would that end up in court? Apple is a private company. It's free to include/exclude whatever content it wants. Consumers don't have a right to force a company to provide the content they want.

sneak 11y ago

The App Store is about volume and profit and PR, not about providing a forum for art or expression. An app with pictures of classic paintings that happen to include nipples will not be approved for sale. After all, if you really want that kind of stuff, you can always install a different package manager and use someone else's selection of apps. Oh, wait.