×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Bans Sale of Comic Book On All iOS Apps Over Gay Sex Images - Update

Soulskill posted 1 year,7 days | from the past-lessons-remain-unlearned dept.

Apple 299

New submitter RicardoGCE writes "Apple has banned all iOS apps from carrying Saga #12, a comic book created by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples, and published by Image Comics. The reason for the ban is the depiction of oral sex appearing on the computer monitor that serves as the head of one of the characters. The content has been deemed pornographic, and sale of the comic has been blocked. Comixology will allow users to sync their purchases, however, so users of their app will be able to read the book on their i-devices. They just won't be able to buy it through the iOS version of the app." Vaughan himself points out the sexual representation in this issue ("two postage stamp-sized images") are not as graphic or as prominent as other situations from past issues. The difference is that this depiction is of a homosexual encounter rather than a heterosexual one. Image Comics took the high road, saying they regret the decision, but that it's "Apple’s decision and it would be inappropriate for us to tell another company how to run its business."
Update: 04/10 18:36 GMT by S : As it turns out, reports of Apple censorship were wrong. Comixology posted today on their blog that they were the ones who decided to remove the issue of Saga from the app. They did so because they were trying to follow Apple's content guidelines. The issue will be available via their app soon.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

299 comments

Filthy shades of gay (2, Interesting)

Reality Man (2890429) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408407)

Can't have that at Apple, can we?

Re:Filthy shades of gay (-1)

interval1066 (668936) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408791)

Becuase no one at Appel is gay...? Was that ex-hippy Steve's dying request to Tim Cook; "...and Tim, no gays. EVER. ~ughhhh~...."

non-issue (ha, pun!) (-1, Flamebait)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408921)

what's the issue here? apple finds that a comic book issue doesn't meet its content guidelines, so stops sale of it. seems cut and dry. is the issue the supposition that the comic wouldn't have been removed if it weren't for the gay stuff? this may or may not be, but it's all just talk.

Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (5, Informative)

funkylovemonkey (1866246) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408935)

The issue is that Apple didn't have any problems with the extensive heterosexual sex in previous issues which on the whole were more graphic and more extensive. They also had no problem with depictions of drug use and child prostitution, all things that have been depicted in the comic previously. It wasn't until it depicted a man receiving oral stimulation from another man that they decided it was "inappropriate."

Re:non-issue (ha, pun!) (-1, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408945)

Exactly, if it was a depiction of heterosexual sex, Apple would have behaved the same way.

I'm an ex-apple guy and we feel about Apple the same way ex-smokers feel about cigarette smoke so I'm not a fanboi or an apologist. I'm just pointing out that this is consistency, not persecution.

LK

Re:Filthy shades of gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408901)

You'd think apple would promote the gay stuff but ban the hetero stuff as 'misogyny.'

So long, farewell... (5, Insightful)

DumbparameciuM (772788) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408411)

So the appropriate response to being censored now is to roll over? No fight whatsoever?

Re:So long, farewell... (2, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408473)

Only governments can sensor. Sure you can do e.g. dmca takedowns, but it is up to the government to enforce that at gunpoint.

You can refuse to pay the lawyers, and you can refuse to go to court, but if you refuse to go to jail for contempt of court the police will drag you there at gunpoint.

I'm no fan of apple by any stretch, but the app store is their property, and their private domain that they are free to remove you from if they don't like you. If you don't like it, go to a more open platform like android.

Re:So long, farewell... (5, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408505)

Only governments can sensor.

Anyone can censor, but only government censorship is typically limited by legal "free speech" provisions like those of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

Private censorship -- especially by a player with substantial market power -- can have similar effects and raise similar ethical issues to government censorship, even if it isn't addressed by the same legal provisions.

Re:So long, farewell... (1, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408657)

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

Apple isn't doing that, they're just saying "not in my app store"

Sony v. Hotz (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408687)

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

Since Sony threatened exactly that in Sony v. Hotz.

Apple isn't doing that, they're just saying "not in my app store"

You're correct that Apple hasn't gone all Sony v. Hotz on those who enable jailbreaking. Yet.

Re:Sony v. Hotz (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408979)

Sony at no point ever had any arrest powers. Could they petition the government to do so? Yeah, but they themselves can not. That is why it is ultimately the government who censors.

Re:So long, farewell... (2, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408701)

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint

Since whenever they are holding a gun pointed at you. Or are you arguing against the 2nd Amendment as well?

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408889)

Except they have no other means to put applications on your device than their "their store"..

At least if Google kicked something off the Play store, you can easily side-load the apps.

Re:So long, farewell... (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408913)

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

I never said they did. In fact, the fact that they generally don't is why, whereas (as I stated in GP) private censorship, particularly by a party with substantial market power, can raise some similar ethical issues to government censorship (specifically, in allowing one party to control the ideas that can effectively be communicated), they don't raise an identical spectrum of issues to government censorship.

Apple isn't doing that, they're just saying "not in my app store"

Which is, exactly, private censorship.

Re:So long, farewell... (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408943)

If you're on their private land they can certainly escort you out with armed guards. So imagine if one day there isn't much decent public land left- e.g. all the idiot libertarians got rid of all that pesky Big Government and the Corporations took over and you're just renting your homes from them.

To all those who grumble about Big Government. Get a clue, it's quality not quantity that matters. Don't be surprised things don't get better if you all keep trying to fix the wrong thing.

All those nice "amendments" and laws like FOIA do not apply to Corporations. So if you replace Big Ugly Government with Big Ugly Corp, you'd be more screwed.

The likes of Apple aren't going to hold elections every few years to let the riff-raff vote for different bosses or even put up with the inconvenience of merely pretending to do so.

Re:So long, farewell... (4, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408987)

Since when does any private entity have the power to shut you up at gunpoint or cuff you and put you in jail?

Since when is that the meaning of "censor"?

"...to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable" [merriam-webster.com].

I know it's fashionable for apologists for corporatism to claim that only the state can censor; but it happens to be wrong. When a private company decides "this is objectionable", that's censorship. (Note that deciding "this won't sell therefore we don't want to waste space carrying it" is different.)

Re:So long, farewell... (4, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408519)

Only governments can sensor.

That's bullshit. Companies use the government to protect their market. It is their tool. Things like DMCA, and even copyright itself are industry sponsored, written laws enforced with the government's gun.

Re:So long, farewell... (0)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408617)

If the government chose not to censor, then who is going to censor? Apple doesn't have the power to send anybody to jail.

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408787)

If the government chose not to censor...?

Unless somebody outbids Apple, that will not happen. The government is a creation of business interests, for their protection. It will comply, or be overthrown, sometimes peacefully, sometimes not.

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408547)

Only governments can sensor.

Your statement and spelling are both wrong. Anyone with control over a forum or channel can suppress expression.

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408655)

And there are plenty of blog tyrants out there doing just that. With the spam and trolls out there, one actually needs to censor comments on occasion just to keep the thing viable for readers.

No wierdos allowed (1)

ductonius (705942) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408585)

This is why I have never been tempted to buy a ticket into Apple's "walled garden". It's not that it's overtly bad, it's just has a giant "no weirdos allowed" sign at the entrance. I *like* the weirdos. I find the fact that the weirdos can do their weirdo things comforting. When the wierdonium level in the social construct around me drops below a certain level I go into withdrawal. It's not a good thing! Weirdonium starts running from my pores in an attempt to fill the void. Luckily there's a place on Amazon that sells wierdonium cream. It helps.

Re:No wierdos allowed (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408615)

I have never been tempted to buy a ticket into Apple's "walled garden". It's not that it's overtly bad,

Right, it's not that it's overtly bad, it's just that the system is set up in a way that someday, it's inevitable will cause you pain. Just like monarchies can be great in the beginning when the king is benign and an excellent administrator (hey, the trains run on time!) Eventually someone else will come into power, and you don't want to be involved in a system like that. Best to avoid it when it's easiest, from the beginning.

Re:No wierdos allowed (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408775)

Just remember folks - that since they are choosing to only allow certain things that fit their "ideas of good and right" - then anything they do let in, if it harms you or your device in any way, the onus is on Apple to make good on it. They become, as gatekeepers to their domain, responsible for *ALL* activities that occur within it.

Someone cyberstalking you? Apple is responsible. Someone tracks you, steals from your home based on info from your iDevice? Apple is responsible, legally and financially.

That's the problem with setting up that walled garden, since you restrict the "bad elements", whatever you let in, you become responsible for their actions.

Can't have one without the other.

Let the data-loss, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying lawsuits commence....

Re:So long, farewell... (4, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408733)

"Only governments can sensor."

For god's sake, you don't even know how to SPELL "censor". I mean, look it up in a dictionary; it's not restricted to governments.
- True statement: "The First Amendment only applies to the government."
- False statement: "Censorship is something only government can do."

Privately-owned broadcast television companies and publishing houses have in-house staff who function as censors.
http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-to-get-back-at-network-censor.html

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408765)

Private companies and groups also censor, but it is more nefarious. While the government can use the police to beat you with sticks, companies censor just up to the point where the government would get involved. The Comics Code, for example, wasn't created because comic book authors wanted to censor themselves. It was because if they didn't, the government would!

The topics that will cause a company to self-censor aren't posted in a list to follow. It is sort of like Chinese censorship where the company will self-censor what it thinks will piss off the government. One of the things that was self-censored for ages was portraying gay men as decent human beings. Others have included discussing communism in a positive light, attacking certain political leaders, criticizing the War on Drugs, etc.

The reason I point this out is that censorship by companies and groups is just as toxic to ourselves as that brought by police officers with guns. Imagine if news organizations didn't self-censor their doubts prior to the Iraq War. Imagine if people in power weren't afraid to call the War on Drugs bullshit. And imagine if today we acknowledged that gay sex isn't aberrant and that more heterosexuals have oral and anal sex than gay men!

Wait a sec (2, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408517)

Censorship is a government function; it is repression. Anti-freedom in every sense of the word, using power backed by violence. When an individual or a corporation decides it will not (or will) go somewhere, and government doesn't get in the way, that is an actual *use* of freedom.

I would not make the same decision -- I think it is the exact wrong way to go -- but it is simply wrong to call making this choice "censorship."

If you don't like it, you can always vote with your wallet, and encourage others to do so as well. But stick to the issue at hand: Apple has decided to limit information flow from its developers and content providers to its customers. Don't like it? Fine. Don't do business with them, take them to task for doing business the way they do, stand in front of HQ with rainbow signs, do business directly with the content providers, etc.

Re:Wait a sec (5, Insightful)

sesshomaru (173381) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408559)

Any sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from a government.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408665)

No corporation is sufficiently large to be confused with larger governments.

105 countries' GDP is smaller than $46B/yr (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408721)

No corporation is sufficiently large to be confused with larger governments.

That depends on what you consider to be "larger governments." "Apple by the Numbers" by Scott Austin [wsj.com] claims that there are 105 countries whose gross domestic product is smaller than Apple Inc.'s revenue of $46 billion per year.

Re:105 countries' GDP is smaller than $46B/yr (4, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408861)

What's Apple's direct GDP contribution? That's the actual apples to apples comparison after all. I imagine it's much closer to their net income than their revenue. That drops their GDP contribution by almost a factor of four. I'd say it contributes about as much GDP as Uruguay did in 2012. That's nice, but that's not a large country.

Uruguay is a country of a bit under 3.4 million people, and it has a military of about 25,000 people. Apple has power only as long as it maintains that GDP contribution and its profit. Uruguay's power comes from its monopoly of power status over 3.4 million people. When you toss in the substantial constraints on the power of Apple, I think it's rash to compare the power of a corporation to that of even a government of comparable size.

Re:Wait a sec (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408955)

No matter where you live, you can always ignore Apple. And pretty much any corporation for that matter. They are not governing you; they try to sell you something. You don't like them? Don't buy anything from them.

However you can not normally ignore your government. If you don't pay your taxes, they'll come after you. If you don't follow their rules, they'll come after you.

Re:Wait a sec (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408639)

Censorship: [wikipedia.org]

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

couchslug (175151) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408575)

No, the appropriate response is not bother with a walled garden YOU DO NOT OWN unless it PAYS to do so.

If another business doesn't want your product it need not carry it.

Re:So long, farewell... (1)

MacDork (560499) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408605)

So the appropriate response to being censored now is to roll over? No fight whatsoever?

How ya gonna fight it? It's in the EULA bro. Don't like it? Move to android where 75% (and growing) of the mobile users are located.

Re:So long, farewell... (2)

Roogna (9643) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408755)

Well an obvious way is to complain if you're an Apple customer. Honestly, companies behave this way because a lot of very ridiculous minority groups raise a HUGE fuss against stuff like this on TV, or in the AppStore or whatnot. But the majority of people who could care less, or simply think parents should look at the ratings before handing it to their kids? They don't bother to raise a fuss. They shrug and move on. So yes, buying android is a solution (and a decent one at that, after all, taking away money from the bottom line is a hugely important tactic in getting companies to act in the way we the consumer's would like), but let them know WHY you're buying Android and are no longer a Apple customer.

So seriously, e-mail Tim Cook and say this is not how you want the AppStore on the device you paid for run.

feedback
http://www.apple.com/feedback/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html [apple.com]

support
http://www.apple.com/support/mac/app-store/ [apple.com]

And I'm sure anyone on this site can find Tim Cook's email without too much trouble. If you can't then why are you on /.?

Re:So long, farewell... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408785)

It is when it really is your fault for publishing faggoty images.

We don't know (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408427)

I love bashing Apple over their walled garden as much as any other Slashdotter (well, aside from shills like BasilBrush), but in this case, what is the evidence that this was banned specifically over gay sex, and not just because that particular reviewer was more uptight than others in similar cases? Apple reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent.

Re:We don't know (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408487)

I'm assuming this is a piece of content that is purchased through an app that runs on the device, i.e. comixology or whatever.
Apple banning someone from selling something seems an overreach. It's not my device if I can't buy what I want with it...

You can apparently buy it through a web browser on the comixology website and download it, just not buy it from your iPad... weak sauce

God! Don't you hate it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408437)

Don't you just hate it when you can't get gay sex on your handheld device?!? What's Apple's problem, anyway? They do have that whole Rainbow emblem, after all.

Anyone?

Hello?

Anyone listening?

Re:God! Don't you hate it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408823)

Faggotry is wrong. It is totally appropriate to prevent the promotion of such depravity.

It's apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408441)

Why are we surprised about this and why is this even news worthy?

Re:It's apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408495)

As long as they're just a puritanical control-freak of a company, it's merely annoying but avoidable by not buying their overpriced trash.

But if, as is implied, they applied a double standard in this case, then they're homophobic assholes. That's the kind of thing that should and will lead to a pretty severe political backlash these days.

Re:It's apple (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408589)

Why are we surprised about this and why is this even news worthy?

Well, given the certain steriotypical stigma ususally applied to fans of Apple products, this is quite a surprising turn of events.

Sarcasm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408449)

"it would be inappropriate for us to tell another company how to run its business" - but they are ok with Apple telling them how to run theirs!

Re:Sarcasm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408465)

That's probably the exact point they intended to make. Glad you caught that. It was a slippery one.

Re:Sarcasm? (1, Insightful)

ikaruga (2725453) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408637)

I hate to defend Apple, but you got to admit, it's Apple's own turf, directly or indirectly we're talking about their servers. Even if you try to get the comic through a 3rd party app, the app must be downloaded through their servers. Is it an asshole thing to do? Since they don't let applications to be installed from outside the Appstore, I say yes. Who to blame? Their beloved costumers, as they are the ones funding this system.

Apple is not telling them how to run their business. Image Comics still can create sell their content anywhere else they want, if allowed(try selling gay porn at a church bookstore). And Apple can't do nothing about it.

Re:Sarcasm? (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408771)

I think they could win a lawsuit against Apple. Apple blocked direct sales through the app, but still sells it themselves. They are abusing their "monopoly" in the market to block access through a 3rd party while allowing it through theirs. If it's so objectionable it must be removed from the marketplace, why did they remove it from everywhere in the market place they don't own, but still allow it on the marketplace the one place Apple does own?

in other news (0)

superwiz (655733) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408459)

every hipster's head just exploded

Re:in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408543)

every hipster's head just exploded

So that's what's in there. High explosives and a remote trigger. I knew it wasn't brains.

Gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408461)

Of course the gay aspect is featured in the coverage, but Apple would do this for ANY sexual depiction...

Re:Gay (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408521)

Of course the gay aspect is featured in the coverage, but Apple would do this for ANY sexual depiction...

Except that, as noted in even TFS, they haven't for similar non-gay sexual depictions sold through the same venues.

Re:Gay (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408561)

Except that for previous even more graphic heterosexual content in the same comic, they didn't.

Re:Gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408883)

Does anyone have a link to, or description of the "even more graphic heterosexual content"? I saw the banned gay content today, and it's hard to imagine many things which could be significantly more graphic, heterosexual or otherwise.

The high road (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408463)

...would be to choose not to publish this comic in the first place.

Isn't it wonderful? (3, Insightful)

Progman3K (515744) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408489)

We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality

Are we "thinking different" enough yet?

Re:Isn't it wonderful? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408569)

We live in an age where big corporations can legislate morality

Only if you buy Apple. This is what you get when you buy into a system with a gatekeeper. Stuff gets kept out.

OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408493)

The two first world obsessions, gay rights and apple products collide in a mellow dramatic twist of fate! A comic book that no one has ever read becomes front page news! Millions of people get to read the words " oral sex appearing on the computer monitor that serves as the head of one of the characters" in a news article. A heroic battle of a billion tweets erupts and the most important rights issue of our time, whether you can read an obscure comic books with allusions to gay sex on your mobile phone becomes, for 15 minutes, on the top of the minds of millions of self-absorbed ennui filled smart-phone diddling hipsters.

Re:OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408621)

a mellow dramatic twist of fate

Wow! Both mellow and dramatic!

Re:OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408625)

It's not actually about gay rights, the author is trying to make it seem like being about gay rights in order to get more attention. If Apple were actually anti-gay, why did the donate so much money to stop proposition 8? It's more likely Apple just never noticed it until that time.

Re:OmG! Gay Rights vs Apple Worship! What 2 Do? (2)

hedronist (233240) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408661)

mellow dramatic twist of fate!

I don't know if this was deliberate or not, but it is now in my Phrase List and I hunger for a chance to use it.

I thought it was well known (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408507)

that you can't get porn on iPhones/iPads.

Is gay porn somehow different and worthy of new nerd rage?

Re:I thought it was well known (-1, Troll)

geek (5680) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408593)

Yeah, it's an outrage when a minority group doesn't get their porn pushed out onto a family oriented medium like the Apple App Store. In comic books no less.

Watch all the liberals go crazy detracting it as "censorship OMGZ" and all the moronic LGBT activists have hissy fits. Sorry but your gay porn doesn't belong on an app store where little kids spend a fair amount of their time. Especially when its in a fucking comic book app that kids will naturally be drawn too. Keep your perverted bullshit to yourselves.

Re:I thought it was well known (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408667)

But straight porn is OK?

Re:I thought it was well known (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408811)

The fact that you engage in left vs right politics indicates that you're an imbecile. Liberals (or conservatives and whoever else someone may want to blame) aren't the cause of all the world's problems, and straw manning an entire group doesn't exactly make you look good (nor does parroting this "family values" nonsense, but that's another story).

Re:I thought it was well known (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43409003)

You are aware that Comic Books have ratings, right? Just like movies and video games and TV shows? That adult comics have been around for, oh, decades? And that comics not intended for kids are fairly regularly sold through ComiXology, which is THE major digital market for comic books?

Or are you just an uninformed idiot who's bigotry is showing?

Re:I thought it was well known (5, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408669)

You are missing the central point: This doesn't even require reading TFA, just the summary. Previous issues of Saga had as graphic or more so heterosexual situations. Yet they were not banned, nor have they been banned. Saga 1-11 is still available. So the problem here is that heterosexual and gay are being treated differently.

Re:I thought it was well known (3, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408813)

I'd be curious to see the examples they were talking about. I'd say in general that male genitalia are the most pornographic body part of either gender, and that images involving men are generally considered more pornographic than those involving women, ie two women is less pornographic than a mixed pair, which is less pornographic than two guys. Basically I'm saying it's not clear that it's discrimination at work so much as different standards as to what constitutes pornography.

Re:I thought it was well known (2)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408871)

That almost makes it sounds like it is gender discrimination rather than orientation discrimination.

Re:I thought it was well known (1)

domatic (1128127) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408983)

I've noticed SkiniMax is basically the same way. Every so often, there will be some full frontal female pubic hair..but no clitorus..but the editing makes it obvious they're avoiding dicks.

Re:I thought it was well known (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408905)

Are you saying previous issues had female on male blowjobs that were allowed through, and #12 had the male on male blowjob that was banned?

That's not two men (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408545)

That's me and my sister with a strap-on!

Seriously, if the images are postage-stamp-size, how can you tell it's NOT a man and a woman-who-looks-like-a-man-with-a-strap-on? Is the Retina display really that good?

Straight porn isn't allowed either (1)

hsmith (818216) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408557)

So, what is this faux outrage we are being presented with? (And I think the ban on porn in general is childish)

Re:Straight porn isn't allowed either (-1, Troll)

geek (5680) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408603)

(And I think the ban on porn in general is childish)

Then you're an idiot. Lets show your 6 year old daughter some anal penetration porn in her my little pony app, see how that goes over. Fuckwads like you are a blight on society.

Re:Straight porn isn't allowed either (2)

PsyberS (1356021) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408641)

Then you're an idiot. Lets show your 6 year old daughter some anal penetration porn in her my little pony app, see how that goes over. Fuckwads like you are a blight on society.

As long as said anal penetration earns the my little pony app an M+ rating, why not? I do believe this is exactly why Apple instituted the rating system; so that parents can decide what level of app is appropriate for their child(ren) and then block access to the rest.

Re:Straight porn isn't allowed either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408767)

Yeah, that's exactly what's happening here. The gay agenda is forcing their porn into My Little Pony apps for kids. You are a reactionary, bigoted idiot.

There's already been plenty of graphic sexual content (not to mention violence) in this particular comic. It just wasn't homosexual. It's the gay stuff that made Apple balk, which although not my cup of tea, ain't a big deal either. Who gives a shit? This comic isn't for kids. And last I checked, children aren't even allowed to buy apps from the app store! So what are you all lathered up about? If your under-18 kid is buying apps, then you're not paying attention, making you a shit parent.

Re:Straight porn isn't allowed either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408977)

Lets show your 6 year old daughter some anal penetration porn in her my little pony app

Even if you did, I doubt anything noteworthy would occur. You don't actually think that seeing pornography can destroy a child, do you? That seems unlikely, and if you believe otherwise, you're just... an idiot.

Fuckwads like you are a blight on society.

Your Leave It to Beaver morality is a blight on society.

Re:Straight porn isn't allowed either (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408989)

If your 6 year old daughter has an iPhone you're an idiot

Has anyone else looked at the banned content? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408591)

I did earlier today and I doubt this has anything to do with "explicit gay sex imagery" vs. just "explicit sex imagery". One of the two images shows multiple penises ejaculating on someone's face. I doubt that making the face look more feminine instead of masculine would have had much influence on changing Apple's decision. I'm only commenting on this because the news outlets have been turning this into a "Apple banning gay expression" story instead of a more accurate "Apple bans sexually explicit imagery as it always has, even though something else bad happened to sneak through their process once upon a time earlier" story. Does the online community really believe that Apple, a company that has always been clear in its support of equality of all lifestyles, and a company run by a gay male CEO, is persecuting some comic because of a specifically gay component, rather than just an excessively sexual component?

Re:Has anyone else looked at the banned content? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408673)

no its because the CEO doesn't like facials. If it was just anal penitration or fellatio it would have passed.

and you thought you owned your computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408821)

just because you bought it, doesn't mean you own it

Meh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,7 days | (#43408873)

You would not find this at any reputable retailer either. How could anyone respond with anything but meh?

Gosh I feel so much safer (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | 1 year,7 days | (#43408981)

with Apple taking its DHS/TSA responsibilities so seriously.
I, for one, welcome our making the choice for us overlords.
Oh, by the way, Its a cookbook!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...