[Crossposted at Family Scholars, Alas, and TADA.]
From The Washington Post:
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple has quietly axed an iPhone app that linked to a conservative Christian manifesto called the Manhattan Declaration, issued a year ago and signed by nearly a half-million people.
Apple approved the app in October, rating it a 4+ – free from objectionable material. But this week, Apple changed its iTune. The app “violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people,” Natalie Kerris told CNN.
The anti-app campaign, led by Change.org, mustered 7,700 petitions to Apple founder Steve Jobs. Supporters criticized the app as promoting hate and homophobia.
(Full Disclosure: The Manhattan Declaration was co-written by Robert George, who is on the board of directors of the Institute for American Values, which of course owns Family Scholars Blog, where I’m currently a guest blogger.)
NOM has released a video calling this “censorship,” and saying that “Steve Jobs… has become Big Brother.” At the Manhattan Declaration’s official blog, Billy Atwell writes:
NOM’s video makes a good point. Big Brother is traditionally seen as the government. But when corporations are able to grow to such an extent that they control the means of communication, can they be just as destructive and limiting for the American people? I think the situation with Apple removing the Manhattan Declaration’s app is an example of non-governmental power impacting civil discourse,which keeps us from suffering under tyranny.
This is the same Billy Atwell who only two months ago wrote:
The New Hampshire Union Leader, the state’s largest newspaper, refused the “wedding” announcement of Greg Gould and Aurelio Tine. New Hampshire legalized so-called same-sex marriage under state law in January 2010. […]
If Gould truly respected individual thinking he would respect the Union Leader’s decision not to print an announcement regarding his “wedding.” Gould obviously would feel frustration or even resentment over the decision, but his incessant criticism leaves me wondering if he truly values individual thinking and independence.
So apparently corporate “censorship” (as NOM calls it) encourages tyranny if it’s repressing speech Atwell agrees with, but an example of “individual thinking and independence” when repressing speech Atwell disagrees with.
Atwell’s hypocrisy aside, he has a point about how large corporations impede civil discourse. Most Americans get their news and opinions not directly, but through corporate intermediaries. When CBS accepted a pro-life Super Bowl ad (but refused an ad for a gay dating site), they provided a irreplaceable forum for right-wing advocacy that left-wing advocates did not have access to.
In the last decade, the best defense against corporate dominance of public discourse has been the internet, where anyone (well, anyone able to write well, with internet access) can pull up a soap box and have some hope of finding readers. But as major corporations prepare to do away with “net neutrality,” and as devices like the iphone and the ipad increasingly privatize access to their users, I’m not sure we can depend on that continuing.
For the moment, I’m not really crying for any side. With outlets like talk radio, Fox News, and a zillion conservative newspapers and websites, anti-SSM folks are in no actual danger of not having access to the public square. Similarly, pro-equality folks have access to a lot of major media. No side can legitimately claim that their views have been effectively censored.
But a healthy public debate is a matter of degree. We don’t live in a totalitarian society, but our discourse isn’t as free and open as it should be. Obviously, it’s not possible for every viewpoint in the world to get “equal time” in finite media, so gatekeeping is sometimes necessary. I wouldn’t object to a major newspaper deciding not to give space to the flat earth society, for example, since that debate is largely settled and the flat-earthers have no significant constituency among the American public. But for corporations to decide to allow only one side of a major current controversy access to major media is a frightening imposition on public discourse.
So I agree with The Manhattan Declaration folks about one thing — Apple should allow their app, just as CBS should allow pro-lgbt ads in the Superbowl, and the biggest newspaper in a state should accept same-sex marriage announcements. Unfortunately, if their blog is anything to judge by, the folks behind The Manhattan Declaration don’t genuinely object to corporate gatekeepers of speech — they just object to corporate gatekeepers of their speech.
Hypocrisy knows no party but I’m glad to see you being even-handed. I agree, they should permit the app. It would be trivially simple for Apple to remedy the legitimate concern of people who don’t want to be exposed to this material, by simply creating a category of contentious content for stuff that isn’t porn or snuff videos or what have you…they could call it, I dunno, “politics”.
In general I think companies should place a high bar for squelching content, and “a lot of people don’t like the people who said this” shouldn’t even come close to topping that bar. The exact same thing would be true of an app that links to a pro-gay-rights site. Sauce for the goose…
Better by far to acknowledge diversity of thought and permit anything that isn’t an outright attack. Delink the “Kill all the Jews” app by all means…but the “Man, Israel Sucks” app ought to be permitted.
I’m going to have to disagree – this isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Apple is offering products, via its store, that can be used on its devices. That some such products are used to convey ideas is secondary – consider, by analogy, Barnes & Nobles, which can refuse to carry certain content (porn, hate speech, etc.), either on physical shelves or for their nook e-reader. And it goes both ways – I’m sure there are christian bookstores who refuse to shelf The God Delusion. That’s their right, to control what they sell.
IMHO, the key issue is that Apple isn’t cutting off web access to the sites associated with this content and its authors, but merely refusing to take an active part in its promotion and distribution. Freedom of speech means you have the right to write a book, not that you have the right for that book to be published by any/every publisher you want.
I do agree that there is a potential for corporate decisions like this to interfere with free speech, but I don’t think this is an example of such a case. Yes, refusing a publish a book/app does have the potential to silence the ideas of the author to some degree and give corporations power over the distribution of ideas, but consider the converse – how do you ethically tell a business (be it multinational corporation or mom & pop shop) that they cannot refuse certain content, even if they and most of their userbase finds it objectionable?
Honestly, the whole issue can be rendered moot by just approving and enforcing Net Neutrality, thereby permanently making the net a site for anyone to espouse or read any idea, from high-minded political analysis to 4chan’s /b/. Individual websites can accept or reject any content they please, for any reason, and users can simply go to other websites to find or promote that content.
Apple is a private corporation. Their actions do not compromise censorship.
I don’t see how net neutrality would render this moot. The ‘net already is a site to anyone to espouse or read any idea.
This is a something of a sidetrack, but what good would an app. for this Declaration do? I don’t own an iPhone, so I don’t know how these things work, but isn’t an app supposed to be something like a dynamic program that actually does stuff? If I’m reading this right, all the MD app does is show a text length that a bunch of people wrote, which is available to users of the web as is. Even if I wanted to read this document and I already have an iPhone, what makes more sense, going through the process of downloading a new app, or just using my phone’s browser to google it?
So, this may be a cop-out, but the best reason for Apple to not carry this app is not because it insults a group of people (although that much is true!), but because it’s a pointless app.
Ben — the purpose of the app is to allow people to read and to sign their name to the declaration.
Amp – That’s all? I guess the religious right’s critical thinking skills are matched only by their programming ability.
Ok, I had no idea. That’s a bit different!
I’ve got an app on my Android phone that has the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Mayflower Compact, Virginia Declaration of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Rev. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, Miranda Warning, and others. Along with commentary on all of them (a section on Separation of Powers starts “The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.”) It’s a handy reference to have.
Heck no.
Apple should be allowed to block this, or anything like it. Anyone who wants to can get the info on the web using the apple browser: AFAIK every machine that can run this app also has a browser built in.
One of the most important aspects of freedom of speech (though one which is not often recognized) is the freedom from compulsion to speak. And although this isn’t a first amendment issue (Apple is not the government) I think your argument fails on the same grounds.
Your analogies also aren’t especially accurate. As monopolies go, the app marketplace is pretty minor. It only affects a very few people who happen to own apple products and who also buy apps. There’s a big difference between the relative status of “can’t find an app for it” compared to”can’t get any of the major networks to play it,” or “can’t get any of the major papers to print it.”
So given the intrusion on Apple and the lack of monopoly status and the widely available alternatives and the comparatively minimal effect even on apple users, I think Apple’s decision is A-OK. Even commendable. This isn’t even CLOSE to the kind of balance we’d require to consider Apple to be obligated.
Don’t we want people to make choices? Don’t we want people to retain their right to speak (or not) and associate with whoever they please? Do you plan to stop moderating any time soon?
G&W: You’re confusing “Apple should allow X” with “Apple should be forced to allow X”. Amp was arguing for the former; you’re arguing against the latter, but nobody is disagreeing with you.
No, I don’t even think Apple should allow X. And if Apple was somehow to be convinced to do so, it shouldn’t be out of any misguided claims to open markets, opposing views, or hypocrisy.
By the way, Billy Atwell responded to me in the comments at Family Scholars.
Nonetheless, Joe is quote right; virtually all of your lengthy response to me in comment #9, is a response to arguments I never made at all.
Amp, that’s ridiculous. A copy of your words is in my post, and I’m responding to them.
here, allow me to be more clear:
I think you’re wrong. My explanation is in my post. Also (1) I don’t trust you or anyone else to define ‘major current controversy,” “major media” or any of the other as-yet-undefined terms which must be clearly defined for this argument to really have much weight; (2) even if corporations did that, it would neither be an imposition on public discourse (corporations don’t control all public discourse) nor “frightening” (remember that hypocrisy thing here)
I think you’re wrong again. Apple shouldn’t allow their app unless Apple feels like doing so. But I already went into why.
And AGAIN! That’s because you’re promoting a type of quasi-socialism in the media sense which I find disconcerting. Moreover, you’re using extreme examples of corporate censorship to support a very unrelated example of blocking an app.
If you want to retract the argument, I’m game. but claiming that you never made it is a bit odd.
G&W, when you say things like “Don’t we want people to retain their right to speak (or not) and associate with whoever they please?” and cite the first amendment right to refrain from speech, that’s clearly responding to someone who had argued for taking those rights away from Apple.
And I never made such an argument. In the bit of my post you quoted, I said Apple should allow the app — not that the government should force Apple to allow the app.
As you said, “If you want to retract the argument, I’m game. but claiming that you never made it is a bit odd.”
To suggest that there’s no possible corporate imposition on public discourse until corporations “control all public discourse” is not a reasonable standard. Suppose that all the major corporations decided that they’d air pro-choice views, but not pro-life views, on their radio & TV networks and in their newspapers. There would still be some elements of public discourse available to pro-lifers (the internet, streetcorner soap boxes, etc), so corporations aren’t controlling all public discourse; but it would be ludicrous to suggest that there hadn’t been any imposition on public discourse.
It’s more reasonable to see imposition on public discourse is a matter of degree, not all or none.