Apple rejects "Manhattan Declaration" app for second time

[meegbear]

Apple has again rejected a revised app version of the "http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx">Manhattan Declaration," a document written and signed by various leaders in the conservative-christian community, according to a http://glaadblog.org/2010/12/29/apple-rejects-homophobic-iphone-app-for-the-second-time/">report from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Apple originally approved, then http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/10/12/02/message.targeted.ceo.steve.jobs/">rejected the app earlier this month in response to petitions and criticism from gay and progressive groups. The new version was rejected for the same reasons as previously given, the company's belief that the app would "expose a group to harm" and that the intent of the app is to be "objectionable and potentially harmful to others."

The actual declaration calls for signatories to be anti-abortion, pro-traditional marriage and to engage in civil disobedience where existing law is in conflict with Christian dogma. It directly refers to gay relationships as "immoral sexual partnerships," and says marriage "is not a civil right" for gay people. It promotes the sanctity of life in opposing abortion, genocide, ethnic "cleansing" and sexual trafficking, though as critics point out it is completely silent on the topics of war or capital punishment. Likewise, the document ordains that marriage is between one man and one woman ("as a reproductive unit"), but does not actually condemn divorce or remarriage.

The original app version offered a copy of the document for reading and signing, but also added a "poll" on the principles of the document that only awarded points to "correct" answers affirming the document's anti-abortion, anti-gay message. The revised version removed the poll, and was submitted with a petition in favor of reinstating the app, but was rejected again.

The app's developers plan to appeal the rejection to Apple's App Review Board after the holidays. The web site for the document is currently hosting another petition to get the app reinstated.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/12/29/company.believes.app.promotes.intolerance/

Good for them!

[RKP5637]

1. Good!!! n/t

[emulatorloo]

2. Good,

Apple was one of the first companies to extend benefits to same-sex partners.

[Statistical]

3. In related news they also banned wikileaks app.

http://techland.time.com/2010/12/21/apple-explains-why-they-banned-the-wikileaks-app/

Not really sure censorship is a good idea. It cuts both ways.

[WiffenPoof]

4. I Always Love The Right-Wing's Argument...

against abortion based on the "sanctity of life." Yet, they are the first in line to throw the switch in the death chamber.

-PLA

[NuclearDem]

12. That's why I never call them pro-life...they're just anti-abortion

Most of the anti-abortion crowd is also pro-war, anti-HCR, and pro-death penalty. I guess they'll fight for the life in the womb, but once it's out, fuck it.

[WiffenPoof]

13. I Agree...

You don't see the Republicans lining up to adopt all of the unwanted children that result from unwanted pregnancies.

-PLA

[tomg]

5. Along with 1 and 2: Good!

[MadHound]

6. Oh boy, corporate censorship,

We applaud this now, but when a leftist app is disallowed by Apple, will we accept their will quietly or scream bloody murder.

Censorship, no matter whose speech it stifles, is wrong.

[rosesaylavee]

7. Censorship isn't the issue here

An app that threatens civil rights or condones the removal of existing rights ought not to be allowed.

[MadHound]

8. Umm, it certainly is about censorship and free speech

The declaration itself puts forth a certain set of viewpoints, and calls for civil disobedience and protest in support of their viewpoint. That is all.

The left has put out many such similarly structured declarations over the years. Yet we wouldn't think of daring to censor Dr. King's, Malcolm X's, or other leftist heroes' call for protest and civil disobedience. So why is it OK to censor those same kind of calls coming from the right.

Look, I don't like what the declaration stands for or says. But I believe that they people who put it out there have every right to do so. Thus, this is corporate censorship. Apple has the right to do this, but don't be surprised, or scream foul when Apple does the same thing to a declaration on the left.

[Vincardog]

10. Are you trying to say that 1st amendment rights apply to private corporations? "The Government shall

[rosesaylavee]

11. I understand what you are saying however I disagree...

There are other venues for them to follow if they want to protest. How would this type of argument then apply to the store that refuses to provide rope to a lynch mob? I am sure the mob would find another source for their rope but the store would still have an option to participate or not.

In my opinion, Apple is not censoring an individual or group's right to protest or voice an opposing opinion. They are just not allowing their tool to be a part of that protest.

[Renew Deal]

18. Not allowed by whom?

Who should have the power to disallow this?

[rosesaylavee]

22. If you own a company, I think you are allowed to decide

what is sold in that company. If it were the govt, that would be censorship.

[purrFect]

9. i read a wikileaks app was rejected by apple just recently

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Rejects-WikiLeaks-iOS-App-173943.shtml

Apple mistakenly approved and then quickly removed a WikiLeaks iOS application developed by Hint Solutions for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad users. According to a cached Google search, the app, which gave instant access to the world’s most documented leakage of top secret memos and other confidential government documents, sold for $1.99.

[Elwood P Dowd]

15. Yet, you can access all the Wikileaks info using Apple's own Safari browser.

Why pay $1.99 when Apple includes an app on these models that can do it for free?

[fascisthunter]

14. the weirdo fanatic app

[Toucano]

16. Who needs an iphone application for this?

It's a document and a poll.

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is fuck all the stupid fuckers and their stupid fucking apps.

Uugh!

[Renew Deal]

17. Imagine if Microsoft rejected any app they disliked or disagreed with?

Imagine if MS had the power to control what's installed on their software? People would protest about MS trying to control everything. Although I disagree with the app, I also disagree with Apples clearance of Apps. I don't think that should be their role and brings up an ugly conflict of interest.

[Toucano]

19. The day Apple monopolizes the market like Microsoft did, your analogy will be apt.

There exists a plethora of competing devices to the iphone.

At the height of MS's Evil Mode, the same could not be said for them, as was proven in court.

[Renew Deal]

20. You missed the point.

The point is that Apple provides the HW and SW. But they shouldn't govern how they are used.

[Toucano]

21. If that was the point, then what was all the gibberish about Microsoft?

Maybe you failed to make your point?

Now that you're point is clarified, my response is that perhaps Apple shouldn't govern how the hardware and software they provide are used. But the buyer has a choice in what hardware and software to purchase, so the consumer can decide if those terms are acceptable or not.

Didn't a U.S. court say jailbreaking is legal? So the user is free to install whatever they want really, aren't they?

This then becomes an issue about what Apple does or doesn't want to sell over it's own servers, doesn't it?

Would you argue that they must provide storage for and sell a product they find objectionable?

[FreeState]

23. So an app by the KKK calling for segregation would be okay with you?

Every developer enters a contract with apple and it states appa that threaten groups of people are not allowed. Don't like it? Develop for another platform.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. They do.

Already.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. The Day Apple lets porn apps on its platforms is the day I'll accept the "free speech" argument.

Until then, sorry, their platform, their rules.

[rosesaylavee]

26. What disturbs me about this thread

is the seeming confusion between Government and Corporate. Public v Private. And what each can do per the law. Why are these distinctions blurring?

It's great when a company does and acts in a generous way and we agree with them. But unless there is a specific LAW that has been agreed upon by our government, they can do what they wish. If there is no current law to determine their disagreeable behavior yet, we can affect them thru boycott and letters or thru the courts.

Anyone else seeing this here? Or maybe I just need more coffee...

[area51]

27. Isn't this the same company

which approved an app (written by a third-party), then withdrew it after criticism, regarding a game of "shaking a crying baby until it stops"? Interesting.