Offensive speech is the small price you pay for your freedom. Enjoy it.
And, BTW, I live in a country where I am not given the luxury of being able to express some impopular points of view without risking being arrested.
It’s not that hard: The police arresting the asshole developers of those themes? That’s an attack on freedom of speech [+]. Google not allowing them to sell their stuff through the Android Market? Not so much. (I very much expect that Google will remove the themes. It’s no big deal.)
I think it’s ludicrous to even bring up freedom of speech in this context. You can install whatever you want on your Android phone. The developers can sell this theme on their own website and there is an officially supported way of installing third party stuff like this — it’s not like they have a right to be in the Android Market.
I really don’t know why Engadget puts this stupid spin on the story. Google might not be as prude or wimpy as Apple when it comes to curating their Market but I’m mystified why people would believe that Google won’t curate their Market at all. Android is freer than the iPhone because the Android Market is not the only way to install Apps, not because of the Android Market.
[+] Little excursion on constitutional freedoms: Their main purpose is to protect you from the state, not other citizens or groups of citizens (like companies).
Everything.
I, personally, find it disturbing. But if it does not breach the ToS of the Android market, Google has no right to remove the materials. More than that: by removing it from the market, Google would be dictating the terms for censorship in the marketplace, making it difficult for neonazis to find material that appeals to them.
And this is a delicate issue: if you segregate against those with unpopular points of view (the neonazis, religious nuts (aren't them all), proto-terrorists, extreme right-wingers) you drive them underground. If their ideas can no longer be debated in the open, they will be debated - and reinforced - in communities with like-minded people.
I don't care about neonazis and other miscellaneous idiots, but I care about a functioning society I am part of. There is not that much difference between segregating on beliefs and segregating on skin color.
Google can censor this but that would also be sacrificing free speech.
I think its a disgusting theme but I don't think it should be censored, maybe they should get their keywords sorted so it doesn't show up when looking up "Jewish".
Brazil.
Officially, we have free speech, as stated in the constitution, but the same constitution forbids anonymity (I use to joke I have free speech as long as I have a better lawyer that the folks offended by my free speech). Also, there are laws explicitly forbidding racist and other kinds of hate-speech.
I find this foolish - unpopular ideas will be nurtured, if not in the open, where they can be attacked, far more dangerously, in closed self-reinforcing communities.
But, foolish or not, it's the law here.
I am not saying I agree (I do not) but in case these things would need to be tackled at the parliamentary level.
I would be very unhappy with a general bookstore openly refusing to carry a book solely because of its political content.
And I did mention general bookstores. Let's take Glenn Beck books as an example. Personally, I find them rage-inducingly offensive. But I'd still expect the local bookstores, even here in liberal Seattle, to carry them, and, if they didn't have a copy on their shelves, to order it for me. Should I, say, have some sort of psychotic breakdown and decide that I wanted a copy.
What is "openly" and why is it relevant?
BTW - What bookstores do you think that you're happy with?
I liked Village Books, but I haven't lived up in Bellingham for well over 18 years.
I like Elliott Bay.
I like the UW bookstore, but that's largely because of their fabulous SF&F selection.
Of the big chains, I prefer B&N.
"hard look at what censorship really means, and what kind of role it can (and clearly should) play in the new frontier of app marketplaces"
That's a seriously fucked up view on censorship right there. I hope it's just a troll and author really doesn't believe that censorship is ok, and censoring what they don't like is fine and dandy.
Also maybe the reason author thinks "Jewish" and "Hitler" are unrelated search terms is because the only history they have read had all the "hate filled" parts censored.
I don't have a problem with the idea of Google censoring its market to some degree. Unlike Apple, Google has provided users with the ability to install software from any source, significantly mitigating the impact of any censorship. If Google doesn't want to censor hate speech, I'm ok with that too. Ultimately, it's their store, and it's up to them to decide what's sold in it.
I do, however believe that this is an example of poor search results. Someone searching for "Jewish" probably doesn't want this theme, even though it's relevant to the search term.
Maybe thats the real scandal here: Google's market search returns not relevant results!
http://www.android.com/us/developer-content-policy.html
The freedom of the Android platform is that you can put what you want on your device. The same freedom does not apply to the Market -- if you want Market-prohibited content, you need to find another way to get it. This renders most of the article moot.
Otherwise, where to stop? It is illegal to kill somebody, therefore we need a watchdog to approve our every moves, in case it is a killing move?
