: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
... and Apps that break local laws.
Just open Safari you lazy bastards! (not meant for you, Sprockkets)
-- Putting the WikiLeaks issue completely aside -- what we have here, in simple terms, is an app that's been submitted to Apple, approved by Apple, and put up for sale in the app store. Now, Apple has pulled the app and (at the time of my post) hasn't issued a public explanation.
Also, the developer has not published private communication (if any) between himself and Apple that explains his perspective for their action.
So, for the moment in this case, it appears Apple has taken arbitrary action for opaque reasons -- something the new Terms of Service is designed to avoid.
That this app surrounds a highly charged subject and that their take-down action invites hot scrutiny from all angles and social agenda, what better time than now for Apple to demonstrate its commitment to both the letter and spirit of the those new Terms of Service?
I think app developers would enjoy seeing Cause & Effect.
Just open Safari you lazy bastards! (not meant for you, Sprockkets)
I agree. It's not like they banned the site... You can view the same information on the site. I was about to get mad at Apple but it doesn't make any sense to now.
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
I believe that most of the people complaining about censorship are, in reality, trying to make the case that their rights are being infringed. I think most of us who actually think it through would disagree; arguing the point about the narrowest definition of censorship simply detracts from the overarching argument.
I believe that most of the people complaining about censorship are, in reality, trying to make the case that their rights are being infringed. I think most of us who actually think it through would disagree; arguing the point about the narrowest definition of censorship simply detracts from the overarching argument.
Yes, and for those people, as even Jobs said, there is Android.
Yes, there are those who want both, but for those people, there is this thing called the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you will never, every have a 100% perfect phone, car, mate, or anything else.
Canadians said that as well... but the US was successful in extraditing a Canadian citizen to the US to stand trial for selling pot "seeds" by mail... and now he's sitting in a US jail with a 10 year sentence.
I'd like to see someone write an App designed to access the confidential rape charge documents around Assange. Funny how his lawyers are all crying foul over those getting out in the wild.
The rape charges came after some of the elite (call them what you want: Bilderbergers, CFR etc) didn't like what WikiLeaks was doing. Therefore, he might not have raped anyone. It's easy for them to bring someone down if they want. He's lucky he didn't get a murder charge. He didn't get (they didn't set him up) for murder because that wouldn't be believable since the timing would would be too coincidental.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it seems that whenever a person or group does something that the elite don't like, they end up with charges of some sort, drug overdose or death. And yes, I do wear tinfoil hats.
The rape charges came after some of the elite (call them what you want: Bilderbergers, CFR etc) didn't like what WikiLeaks was doing. Therefore, he might not have raped anyone. It's easy for them to bring someone down if they want. He's lucky he didn't get a murder charge. He didn't get (they didn't set him up) for murder because that wouldn't be believable since the timing would would be too coincidental.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it seems that whenever a person or group does something that the elite don't like, they end up with charges of some sort, drug overdose or death. And yes, I do wear tinfoil hats.
Alternatively, he really could be a misogynistic reprobate who thinks very highly of himself, and very derisively of most everyone else... especially of women and their rights to refuse him.
Read his now MIA blog if you can find some archives, and his 'dating' profile. They offer a big window onto the probability that this fellow is some sort of oppressed saint... and a not very compelling one at that.
I don't appreciate how the title of this article says, "illegally leaked classified government documents". If you're referring to "Wikileaks" then that statement would be incorrect. Wikileaks is clearly a media company that released information that was given to them. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that, in fact it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Leaks happen practically everyday, just not about things as politically sensitive. Should AppleInsider be shut down of its funding because they leak Apple product news? It would be illegal for an Apple employee to leak information, but not media companies.
I don't appreciate how the title of this article says, "illegally leaked classified government documents". If you're referring to "Wikileaks" then that statement would be incorrect. Wikileaks is clearly a media company that released information that was given to them. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that, in fact it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Leaks happen practically everyday, just not about things as politically sensitive. Should AppleInsider be shut down of its funding because they leak Apple product news? It would be illegal for an Apple employee to leak information, but not media companies.
There can be a problem if the information is obtained in an illegal manner. Not sure if that's the case in this instance.
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
Perhaps you should reread your link.
Censorship relates to the action of an official of a governing body or agency that affects the citizenry only.
Heck, school boards have a right to censor teachers and students, companies have the right to censor employees and parents have a right to censor their children. All decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court under the guidance of The First Amendment.
As written, The First Amendment proclaims that
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As further explained,
Quote:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a separation of church and state.[1]
Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
Note that it pertains to members of Congress. Not Steve Jobs or any other company CEO person in power as outlined:
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action. When considering private authority figures (such as parents or an employer), the First Amendment provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. "All may dismiss their employees at will,...for good cause, for no cause, or even for a cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong."[66] With specific regard to employee free speech, a few court cases illuminate the limits of the First Amendment vis-a-vis private employment.
I don't appreciate how the title of this article says, "illegally leaked classified government documents". If you're referring to "Wikileaks" then that statement would be incorrect. Wikileaks is clearly a media company that released information that was given to them. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that, in fact it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Leaks happen practically everyday, just not about things as politically sensitive. Should AppleInsider be shut down of its funding because they leak Apple product news? It would be illegal for an Apple employee to leak information, but not media companies.
Alternatively, he really could be a misogynistic reprobate who thinks very highly of himself, and very derisively of most everyone else... especially of women and their rights to refuse him.
Read his now MIA blog if you can find some archives, and his 'dating' profile. They offer a big window onto the probability that this fellow is some sort of oppressed saint... and a not very compelling one at that.
Good point. His personality doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether he's done anything illegal (time will tell), but from what I've heard, he's evidently not in this for the good of any order but his own.
This is what I don't like the most about Apple. Censorship!
They have no business telling us what we're supposed to read or consume.
How is Apple preventing you from reading or consuming anything? They are under no obligation to provide you with anything (including the App store or anything in the app store).
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
Some of the "young thundercats" could include the AppleInsider douche who wrote this article. Lines like "...it joins a number of major U.S. corporations that have attempted to stand in the way of WikiLeaks", should better read "...U.S. corporations that refuse to support the actions of WikiLeaks".
WikiLeaks and their self-promoting (Australian) leader are hurting American interests by releasing information that has done nothing but put the lives of American service-people and the foreign nationals who help the U.S. at risk. The information released has not led to any major revelations about a damm thing.
So I say old Wurm here is right on the money. And if you're an American, and you don't like it, don't buy Apple, and keep your ignorant, knee-jerk comments to yourself. And if your not an American, who cares what you think anyway.
Comments
You need to learn the meaning of the word. Censorship is something that only comes from government, not a private company.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
Definition of CENSOR
1
: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
... and Apps that break local laws.
Just open Safari you lazy bastards! (not meant for you, Sprockkets)
Also, the developer has not published private communication (if any) between himself and Apple that explains his perspective for their action.
So, for the moment in this case, it appears Apple has taken arbitrary action for opaque reasons -- something the new Terms of Service is designed to avoid.
That this app surrounds a highly charged subject and that their take-down action invites hot scrutiny from all angles and social agenda, what better time than now for Apple to demonstrate its commitment to both the letter and spirit of the those new Terms of Service?
I think app developers would enjoy seeing Cause & Effect.
... and Apps that break local laws.
Just open Safari you lazy bastards! (not meant for you, Sprockkets)
... and Apps that break local laws.
Just open Safari you lazy bastards! (not meant for you, Sprockkets)
I agree. It's not like they banned the site... You can view the same information on the site. I was about to get mad at Apple but it doesn't make any sense to now.
Why should any foreign country extradite him to the US. He has done nothing on American soil.
If he is alleged to have committed acts of espionage against the US, that's why. Governments extradite under those types of circumstances.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
I believe that most of the people complaining about censorship are, in reality, trying to make the case that their rights are being infringed. I think most of us who actually think it through would disagree; arguing the point about the narrowest definition of censorship simply detracts from the overarching argument.
I believe that most of the people complaining about censorship are, in reality, trying to make the case that their rights are being infringed. I think most of us who actually think it through would disagree; arguing the point about the narrowest definition of censorship simply detracts from the overarching argument.
Yes, and for those people, as even Jobs said, there is Android.
Yes, there are those who want both, but for those people, there is this thing called the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and you will never, every have a 100% perfect phone, car, mate, or anything else.
If he is alleged to have committed acts of espionage against the US, that's why. Governments extradite under those types of circumstances.
... and pot seeds.
Canadians said that as well... but the US was successful in extraditing a Canadian citizen to the US to stand trial for selling pot "seeds" by mail... and now he's sitting in a US jail with a 10 year sentence.
Crikey. How much is that costing us?
I'd like to see someone write an App designed to access the confidential rape charge documents around Assange. Funny how his lawyers are all crying foul over those getting out in the wild.
The rape charges came after some of the elite (call them what you want: Bilderbergers, CFR etc) didn't like what WikiLeaks was doing. Therefore, he might not have raped anyone. It's easy for them to bring someone down if they want. He's lucky he didn't get a murder charge. He didn't get (they didn't set him up) for murder because that wouldn't be believable since the timing would would be too coincidental.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it seems that whenever a person or group does something that the elite don't like, they end up with charges of some sort, drug overdose or death. And yes, I do wear tinfoil hats.
The rape charges came after some of the elite (call them what you want: Bilderbergers, CFR etc) didn't like what WikiLeaks was doing. Therefore, he might not have raped anyone. It's easy for them to bring someone down if they want. He's lucky he didn't get a murder charge. He didn't get (they didn't set him up) for murder because that wouldn't be believable since the timing would would be too coincidental.
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it seems that whenever a person or group does something that the elite don't like, they end up with charges of some sort, drug overdose or death. And yes, I do wear tinfoil hats.
Alternatively, he really could be a misogynistic reprobate who thinks very highly of himself, and very derisively of most everyone else... especially of women and their rights to refuse him.
Read his now MIA blog if you can find some archives, and his 'dating' profile. They offer a big window onto the probability that this fellow is some sort of oppressed saint... and a not very compelling one at that.
I don't appreciate how the title of this article says, "illegally leaked classified government documents". If you're referring to "Wikileaks" then that statement would be incorrect. Wikileaks is clearly a media company that released information that was given to them. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that, in fact it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Leaks happen practically everyday, just not about things as politically sensitive. Should AppleInsider be shut down of its funding because they leak Apple product news? It would be illegal for an Apple employee to leak information, but not media companies.
There can be a problem if the information is obtained in an illegal manner. Not sure if that's the case in this instance.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor
Subsitute "a person" for someone at the Apple Corporation in charge of censoring the app store. Apple censors their app market of crap, porn, political satire, and other stuff.
Perhaps you should reread your link.
Censorship relates to the action of an official of a governing body or agency that affects the citizenry only.
Heck, school boards have a right to censor teachers and students, companies have the right to censor employees and parents have a right to censor their children. All decreed constitutional by the Supreme Court under the guidance of The First Amendment.
As written, The First Amendment proclaims that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As further explained,
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a separation of church and state.[1]
Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
Note that it pertains to members of Congress. Not Steve Jobs or any other company CEO person in power as outlined:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment as having the same power to alter private property rights, or provide any other protection against purely private action. When considering private authority figures (such as parents or an employer), the First Amendment provides no protection. A private authority figure may reserve the right to censor their subordinate's speech, or discriminate on the basis of speech, without any legal consequences. "All may dismiss their employees at will,...for good cause, for no cause, or even for a cause morally wrong, without thereby being guilty of a legal wrong."[66] With specific regard to employee free speech, a few court cases illuminate the limits of the First Amendment vis-a-vis private employment.
I don't appreciate how the title of this article says, "illegally leaked classified government documents". If you're referring to "Wikileaks" then that statement would be incorrect. Wikileaks is clearly a media company that released information that was given to them. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that, in fact it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Leaks happen practically everyday, just not about things as politically sensitive. Should AppleInsider be shut down of its funding because they leak Apple product news? It would be illegal for an Apple employee to leak information, but not media companies.
And just what Law School did you graduate from?
Alternatively, he really could be a misogynistic reprobate who thinks very highly of himself, and very derisively of most everyone else... especially of women and their rights to refuse him.
Read his now MIA blog if you can find some archives, and his 'dating' profile. They offer a big window onto the probability that this fellow is some sort of oppressed saint... and a not very compelling one at that.
Good point. His personality doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether he's done anything illegal (time will tell), but from what I've heard, he's evidently not in this for the good of any order but his own.
This is what I don't like the most about Apple. Censorship!
They have no business telling us what we're supposed to read or consume.
How is Apple preventing you from reading or consuming anything? They are under no obligation to provide you with anything (including the App store or anything in the app store).
The Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment, made him king.
He's not an American citizen. The US constitution does not apply to him.
And the US constitution was written specifically to prevent a "king" from running the place.
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
Some of the "young thundercats" could include the AppleInsider douche who wrote this article. Lines like "...it joins a number of major U.S. corporations that have attempted to stand in the way of WikiLeaks", should better read "...U.S. corporations that refuse to support the actions of WikiLeaks".
WikiLeaks and their self-promoting (Australian) leader are hurting American interests by releasing information that has done nothing but put the lives of American service-people and the foreign nationals who help the U.S. at risk. The information released has not led to any major revelations about a damm thing.
So I say old Wurm here is right on the money. And if you're an American, and you don't like it, don't buy Apple, and keep your ignorant, knee-jerk comments to yourself. And if your not an American, who cares what you think anyway.