It seems a Pulitzer Prize-winning satirist has created an i-Phone app with his cartoons. Great if you're into that sort of thing, and plenty of people are. But Apple rejected it, saying they did not release apps that ridicule public figures. Personally, I think that's a pretty dang good policy. No telling how many lawsuits they'll avoid that way. Refusing to ridicule people used to seem like such a no-brainer, didn't it? Alas, people are crying censorship. Apparently being on the cutting edge of news-delivering technology does not entitle you to say what kind of news you're comfortable delivering.
I have a couple of issues with this whole thing. Or maybe questions would be better term, since they haven't blown up into full-fledged issues yet. First, what, exactly, constitutes censorship? From what I'm reading and hearing all signs point to a definition of any action that doesn't allow a person to say whatever they want to say in whatever forum they want to say it. I don't think that's an accurate definition. Censorship is a function of government, meaning the government uses its power to repress the publication or broadcast of information that would damage said power in a totalitarian way. The concept of censorship is the principle of a central power having control of the content and dissemination of infomation.
I'm not seeing that as an issue here. It's not as though Apple is in control of the news. It doesn't have the power to repress it. There are still multiple sources to go to if you want this gentleman's cartoons, or any other piece of information. People are just whining becaue they aren't getting everything they want, exactly how and when they want it. There's a word for people like that: Brats.
Which brings me to my second point. Apple is under no obligation to sell that which they do not wish to sell. If it doesn't meet their standards or even if they're just feeling capricious, there is no moral or legal imperative there. Censorship is the enemy of free speech, a fundamental American right. But what we need to remember is that free speech is a right that is tied strictly to our government. In other words, we have the right to criticize our leaders without fear of governmental reprisal. Freedom of the press is part of that. Reporters and news publishers should be free to report the facts without the government forcing them to "tidy it up" to make them look better than they are. But that's really as far it goes. Freedom of speech allows you the right to speak your mind freely. It doesn't grant you the "right" of an audience, however, let alone a warm and accepting one. An audience is not a right.
There is a very simple solution here: If Apple products don't give you what you want, don't buy them. Get your news someplace else. Spend your money in places and on things that give you what you want. In response to the public demanding access to these apps, Apple has reconsidered its stance, and is re-evaluating many apps that have been rejected under their current standards. This, my friends, is what it means to let the market work. Make your wants and demands as a consumer known and someone in the market will meet them. And it might just be someone besides Apple.
