Clearly there is no attempt made to assuage the notion that the application is "politically charged", with language like "The rejection of iSinglePayer from the App Store is but the latest blow to supporters of single-payer health reform" dominating. The author instead urges readers to "spread the word on Apple's censorship", which seems like a pretty blatant attempt to coerce a private enterprise to publish his political agenda. Is that really the sort of thing you want to have associated with your cause?
So while it's (as far as I know) legal for Apple to decline "politically charged" applications, just as it would be legal for them to decline applications made by Jews, I don't think it's morally justifiable. While I agree with the cause of single-payer health insurance, I would be just as upset if Apple rejected the Druge Reader or Fox News app for being "politically charged".
Just as common carriers cannot discriminate against their users, once Apple provides a channel for businesses or people to sell things to customers, their power to decide what goes or doesn't go thought that channel should be limited.
However, people generally frown upon censorship, even in private arenas where it is perfectly legal to apply censorship. This is why, I presume, the article author is throwing the C-word around which such enthusiasm.
What sort of a right. Government given? UN given. God given or some sort of other metaphysically given right? There is nothing in the definition of censorship that says it must be an unjust and indefensible violation your widely recognised right.
"Politically charged" doesn't seem like a valid reason for rejection (because by that standard, apps like Huffington Post on the left or Drudge on the right wouldn't have a place in the app store)
I hope Apple reverses its decision (and I also hope that the rejection was an unintentional mistake)
He got a response: "Even though my personal political leanings are democratic, I think this app will be offensive to roughly half our customers. What’s the point?
Steve"
http://www.juggleware.com/blog/2008/09/steve-jobs-writes-bac...
There must be a way to stop this rejection-crazyness.
For what it's worth, though, there's a ton of apps that are more politically charged (IMO) that were accepted - as an example, Conservative Talking Points is pretty bad.
i appreciate the article's submitter removing the editorial slant in the original headline, but that doesn't improve the content, i'm afraid.
the author is free to take that position, i guess, just as i am free to stop reading any article that talks like that.
