Phil Schiller Acknowledges New App Store Sexual Content Ban and Exceptions

[cmaier]

Government can be accused of censorship. Private citizens and companies cannot. I cannot be forced to publish comments on my blog for instance. I am not bound by censorship laws since I'm not a government.

Yes, the first amendment only applies to government entities (in the U.S., anyway), but censorship refers to any suppression of speech by an entity.

What Apple did was censorship, just not the type of censorship that infringes anyone's first amendment rights.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Yes, the first amendment only applies to government entities (in the U.S., anyway), but censorship refers to any suppression of speech by an entity.

What Apple did was censorship, just not the type of censorship that infringes anyone's first amendment rights.

The argument is moot, anyway. It seems that they only pulled them long enough to do what many people here were suggesting: creating an 'explicit' category so they can re-establish the apps in a restricted environment for those who want to jiggle their boobs.

 

[dejo]

The argument is moot, anyway. It seems that they only pulled them long enough to do what many people here were suggesting: creating an 'explicit' category so they can re-establish the apps in a restricted environment for those who want to jiggle their boobs.

The Explicit category has been removed though.