You are right. The man knows now of what he speaks. He is confusing the abridging an American's right of free speech with censorship. What he means to say the right only applies to the government not private interests. And he is correct there. But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship.
Er, no? I don't see how "are you a nut case?" equates with the denial of Maxwell's ability to publish the document.
So in your viewpoint, if someone offers a dissenting opinion, that's 'censorship'?
" But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship."
How is Mr. Jobs engaged in attempted censorship?
I don't follow. Are you in reference to the iCon book being pulled from Apple Stores?
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
" But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship."
How is Mr. Jobs engaged in attempted censorship?
I don't follow. Are you in reference to the iCon book being pulled from Apple Stores?
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
well, it CAN be taken too far, when the vendor is large and monopoly-ish. like if, say, clearchannel decides to blacklist someone, they're dead in the water. we looked the other way here because, really, apple stores were hardly the biggest vendor possible for the book (i was tempted to pick it up at barnes & noble, until i heard it just wasn't that great a read).
So basically you are saying it isn't relevent to this case then, correct? And further, I absolutely agree that there are lines and I think it is distrubing how small the list of mass media companies who own everything is. But I think it is absolutely fair for the man whom the book is about, if he does not approve of its content, to pull it from his store shelves.
Judging by a lot of the reaction here, there is a lot of racism towards Syrians. At lest thats the undertone I feel.
Jobs could be Syrian, he could also not be. What difference does it make?
It's not like he has some gene in him thats going to place a bomb inside every new iMac.
The iMac Boom
Really guys, I don't even see what the story is here? I even read a few pages on Amazon, and still don't see what the big deal is?
I'm an advocate for Free Press and Privacy. Where the conundrum resides is in how far do we allow each to go? Where is the balance?
I think we should be able to know everything about Jobs when it pertains to the 'Business Man'.
I think it's none of our business when it comes to Jobs, the neighbour down the road.
Don't listen to your government, it's NOT ok to spy on your neighbour. Because guess what, they may be spying on you.
Reminds me of Germany in the 30's. Or the early witch hunts.
A public figure in government is different then a private citizen public figure.
This is something they used to teach in ethics class's for journalism.
Anyways, Jobs could be drunk, gun toting, 1 legged, x-con from Iceland with terrets syndrome and a crack addict... I don't care, as long as my machine works.
"Everyone thinks it's a good idea... until it happens to them".
If Steve Jobs decides not to sell a product in a store that is decision. I don?t think you can call it censorship if you go right next door and pick it up at B&N or any other book store. This not the library limiting the books offered, it is private industry. And to that point if there is a product on his shelf that either puts him or the company he represents in a bad light the he can and should remove it from the shelves.
How long are people going to complain about how much he makes. If you can design hardware and an operating system that the consumer base would so choose to purchase the by all means do it. Stop this ridiculous whining about his bank account. It just shows how petty you are.
The real question is how did this fruitcake get Steve's email address?
There are one or two things I'd like to discuss about the Intel switch.
Being from outside of the US, I didn't pick up on the supposed Syrian connection as being a big deal until I saw what was being read into it here. Just sounds like a case of loser/desperate journalist vs. famously irritable Steve Jobs. Not really an epic, but not something worth digging up the arguments over censorship vs. freedom of speech for either.
The iCon tale is more interesting and in fact shows you something about Jobs which we don't need the nut case guy to remind us about. "Don't piss him off". Apple wouldn't be Apple if it weren't for the way he conducts business. Far worse things go on in corporate America. It's not like we're talking about Amazon pulling a book they don't want people to read. Or Microsoft trying to force feed everyone their DRM...
Judging by a lot of the reaction here, there is a lot of racism towards Syrians. At lest thats the undertone I feel.
Jobs could be Syrian, he could also not be. What difference does it make?
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article? And how on earth could you possibly derive that as your summary...hahaha. I do hope you were joking.
Quote:
I even read a few pages on Amazon, and still don't see what the big deal is?
No, you didn't read a few pages of the "nut case's" work because it's not being sold on Amazon! The "nut case" text was read and subsiquently denied by his publisher. You are referring to the iCon biography, which is entirely seperate from the person whom Steve called a nut case and has nothing to do with the bulk of this appleinsider article except that it is another case where Steve did not endorse or warm up to works about him.
They were only using that example because otherwise the content of the article would have been entirely too short and even less news worthy then it already is.
Quote:
A public figure in government is different then a private citizen public figure.
The reason why they taught you that in ethics class and not Law class is because it is not at all true in a legal sense. A private citizen public figure is called a voluntary or involuntary public figure who may have to prove malice vs a fully private citizen who just has to prove negligence.
Steve Jobs is an all-purpose public figure, a member of a publicly traded company and someone who casts his image into public light on a regular basis.
Again, I and others just felt that this was not worthy of being covered by AI. But at the same time it's funny to see the "classic Steve" and this is a great discussion.
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
Actually, it is more than just not stocking one book. They pulled ALL titles from that publisher from the store, even written by authors that had done nothing wrong and had only the misfortune of being with the wrong publisher. Pulling from an entire publisher vs. choosing not to stock one book are different orders of magnitude, I think.
Using a company's resources to protect "the man" isn't necessarily in the best interests of the rest of the shareholders, and I think represents a conflict of interest of sorts. IIRC, Steve doesn't own majority stake in Apple and I don't think he should have misappropriated his authority in retaliation. Not too surprisingly, it backfired, making it a bad decision twice over.
Steve Jobs is NOT a public figure, he didn't chose a profession like acting or singing or politics, he is a business man just cause that business is very successful doesn't mean he should be treated any differently from any other business man
Steve Jobs is NOT a public figure, he didn't chose a profession like acting or singing or politics, he is a business man just cause that business is very successful doesn't mean he should be treated any differently from any other business man
He's as much a show man as a businessman, as evidenced by the keynotes. Being a well-known "main man" of a large publicly traded company reduces the legal protections afforded.
Steve Jobs demonstrates passion for excellence, sometimes seems mercurial, but wily.
He is a public figure in terms of what he is doing, pushing his companies products. But he has always seemed to like privacy, and so far as I am concerned should have it.
How has Jobs attempted to engage in 'censorship'? It is his business whether or not he poses the question he did, or whether Apple stores have a book in them.
The publisher must have not thought there to be sufficient merit to publish.
Thousands of books, government courses in high school, law schools, etc.
It's different from the word "censure" which means a judgement of condemnation, which can be from anyone.
Censorship is a term that is used incorrectly many times. That doesn't give those incorrect uses authority.
Editorial judgments are made all the time. Appropriateness is the job of the editor. What is published in one journal may not be fit for another. Editorial judgements are not the same as censorship.
However, if the government says that no journal may publish it, that's censorship.
An example would be those seven words not allowed on TV (though they are now coming out after all). The network "censors" were there to make sure they, and other matters, didn't appear. But it was understood that the government would have legislated its own rules had the networks not acceded to their expectations. That's censorship. You can see what the networks are doing since the government has loosened up.
They are a "public" company and he is therefore a public figure and subject to the scrutiny that comes with that. Besides any one person who makes more than 40 million a year should be publicly critisized for something. You don't make that much money without screwing someone over.
You voted Bush right? The intellect is all there...
If I could I would ban Kickaha for censorship (well I can but then someone else would censor me).
First thought: Who the hell cares about Jobs father?
Second thought: Well. Just Jobs being Jobs.
Third though: He could have been more communicative than "are you a nut case?" and stripping of press credentials. Like "yes I am a public figure but I would like to keep my private life private and I would prefer that you respected that". Then there would not have been a story at all.
Comments
Originally posted by Bluecrusader
You are right. The man knows now of what he speaks. He is confusing the abridging an American's right of free speech with censorship. What he means to say the right only applies to the government not private interests. And he is correct there. But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship.
Er, no? I don't see how "are you a nut case?" equates with the denial of Maxwell's ability to publish the document.
So in your viewpoint, if someone offers a dissenting opinion, that's 'censorship'?
Just trying to get a clarification here...
" But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship."
How is Mr. Jobs engaged in attempted censorship?
I don't follow. Are you in reference to the iCon book being pulled from Apple Stores?
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
Originally posted by Mero
Yeah, excellent question...
" But we are talking about censorship, the suppression of ideas, and Mr. jobbs is engaged in attempted censorship."
How is Mr. Jobs engaged in attempted censorship?
I don't follow. Are you in reference to the iCon book being pulled from Apple Stores?
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
well, it CAN be taken too far, when the vendor is large and monopoly-ish. like if, say, clearchannel decides to blacklist someone, they're dead in the water. we looked the other way here because, really, apple stores were hardly the biggest vendor possible for the book (i was tempted to pick it up at barnes & noble, until i heard it just wasn't that great a read).
Whats the big deal?
Judging by a lot of the reaction here, there is a lot of racism towards Syrians. At lest thats the undertone I feel.
Jobs could be Syrian, he could also not be. What difference does it make?
It's not like he has some gene in him thats going to place a bomb inside every new iMac.
The iMac Boom
Really guys, I don't even see what the story is here? I even read a few pages on Amazon, and still don't see what the big deal is?
I'm an advocate for Free Press and Privacy. Where the conundrum resides is in how far do we allow each to go? Where is the balance?
I think we should be able to know everything about Jobs when it pertains to the 'Business Man'.
I think it's none of our business when it comes to Jobs, the neighbour down the road.
Don't listen to your government, it's NOT ok to spy on your neighbour. Because guess what, they may be spying on you.
Reminds me of Germany in the 30's. Or the early witch hunts.
A public figure in government is different then a private citizen public figure.
This is something they used to teach in ethics class's for journalism.
Anyways, Jobs could be drunk, gun toting, 1 legged, x-con from Iceland with terrets syndrome and a crack addict... I don't care, as long as my machine works.
"Everyone thinks it's a good idea... until it happens to them".
How long are people going to complain about how much he makes. If you can design hardware and an operating system that the consumer base would so choose to purchase the by all means do it. Stop this ridiculous whining about his bank account. It just shows how petty you are.
There are one or two things I'd like to discuss about the Intel switch.
Being from outside of the US, I didn't pick up on the supposed Syrian connection as being a big deal until I saw what was being read into it here. Just sounds like a case of loser/desperate journalist vs. famously irritable Steve Jobs. Not really an epic, but not something worth digging up the arguments over censorship vs. freedom of speech for either.
The iCon tale is more interesting and in fact shows you something about Jobs which we don't need the nut case guy to remind us about. "Don't piss him off". Apple wouldn't be Apple if it weren't for the way he conducts business. Far worse things go on in corporate America. It's not like we're talking about Amazon pulling a book they don't want people to read. Or Microsoft trying to force feed everyone their DRM...
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
The real question is how did this fruitcake get Steve's email address?
There are one or two things I'd like to discuss about the Intel switch.
Anyone can email Steve... Make it short and interesting and you may even get a reply; its been known.
Originally posted by rain
Uuuuh... gang.... I don't get it?
Whats the big deal?
Judging by a lot of the reaction here, there is a lot of racism towards Syrians. At lest thats the undertone I feel.
Jobs could be Syrian, he could also not be. What difference does it make?
What...are you...talking...about? Where is there any implication of racism towards Syrians in this entire thread or article? And how on earth could you possibly derive that as your summary...hahaha. I do hope you were joking.
I even read a few pages on Amazon, and still don't see what the big deal is?
No, you didn't read a few pages of the "nut case's" work because it's not being sold on Amazon! The "nut case" text was read and subsiquently denied by his publisher. You are referring to the iCon biography, which is entirely seperate from the person whom Steve called a nut case and has nothing to do with the bulk of this appleinsider article except that it is another case where Steve did not endorse or warm up to works about him.
They were only using that example because otherwise the content of the article would have been entirely too short and even less news worthy then it already is.
A public figure in government is different then a private citizen public figure.
The reason why they taught you that in ethics class and not Law class is because it is not at all true in a legal sense. A private citizen public figure is called a voluntary or involuntary public figure who may have to prove malice vs a fully private citizen who just has to prove negligence.
Steve Jobs is an all-purpose public figure, a member of a publicly traded company and someone who casts his image into public light on a regular basis.
Again, I and others just felt that this was not worthy of being covered by AI. But at the same time it's funny to see the "classic Steve" and this is a great discussion.
Originally posted by Mero
If I don't want a book on the bookshelf in my room, I don't have to keep it there. Same goes for the bookshelf in my computer company store. I can put whatever the hell I want on my bookshelf and that is not up for debate by any measure of debate. It is fundemental. What is your point?
Actually, it is more than just not stocking one book. They pulled ALL titles from that publisher from the store, even written by authors that had done nothing wrong and had only the misfortune of being with the wrong publisher. Pulling from an entire publisher vs. choosing not to stock one book are different orders of magnitude, I think.
Using a company's resources to protect "the man" isn't necessarily in the best interests of the rest of the shareholders, and I think represents a conflict of interest of sorts. IIRC, Steve doesn't own majority stake in Apple and I don't think he should have misappropriated his authority in retaliation. Not too surprisingly, it backfired, making it a bad decision twice over.
Originally posted by kiwimac
Steve Jobs is NOT a public figure, he didn't chose a profession like acting or singing or politics, he is a business man just cause that business is very successful doesn't mean he should be treated any differently from any other business man
He's as much a show man as a businessman, as evidenced by the keynotes. Being a well-known "main man" of a large publicly traded company reduces the legal protections afforded.
He is a public figure in terms of what he is doing, pushing his companies products. But he has always seemed to like privacy, and so far as I am concerned should have it.
How has Jobs attempted to engage in 'censorship'? It is his business whether or not he poses the question he did, or whether Apple stores have a book in them.
The publisher must have not thought there to be sufficient merit to publish.
Better to just let it die.
Originally posted by vinney57
Where does this definition come from exactly?
Thousands of books, government courses in high school, law schools, etc.
It's different from the word "censure" which means a judgement of condemnation, which can be from anyone.
Censorship is a term that is used incorrectly many times. That doesn't give those incorrect uses authority.
Editorial judgments are made all the time. Appropriateness is the job of the editor. What is published in one journal may not be fit for another. Editorial judgements are not the same as censorship.
However, if the government says that no journal may publish it, that's censorship.
An example would be those seven words not allowed on TV (though they are now coming out after all). The network "censors" were there to make sure they, and other matters, didn't appear. But it was understood that the government would have legislated its own rules had the networks not acceded to their expectations. That's censorship. You can see what the networks are doing since the government has loosened up.
Originally posted by Norman Terry
This is of course Aple and Jobs not just Jobs.
They are a "public" company and he is therefore a public figure and subject to the scrutiny that comes with that. Besides any one person who makes more than 40 million a year should be publicly critisized for something. You don't make that much money without screwing someone over.
You voted Bush right? The intellect is all there...
Originally posted by wilco
When Jobs stops appearing on the cover of TIME, then you might have an arguement. Until then...
You voted Bush right? The intellect is all there...
Originally posted by ZoranS
You voted Bush right? The intellect is all there...
Please don't resort to personal attacks.
(OOoooh! Look! Censorship!)
First thought: Who the hell cares about Jobs father?
Second thought: Well. Just Jobs being Jobs.
Third though: He could have been more communicative than "are you a nut case?" and stripping of press credentials. Like "yes I am a public figure but I would like to keep my private life private and I would prefer that you respected that". Then there would not have been a story at all.
Fourth thought: Mmmm. Jelly Beans