[hyperbovine]

Ugh. Nothing stinks more than when somebody feels wronged and starts throwing around the the c-word. In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place. And when it comes to Apple's private app store, ya don't. If you want to express your views on single-payer health care (a cause with which I agree, btw) without fear of censorship, go demonstrate peacefully in front of your local courthouse.

[andreyf]

FWIW, wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor". By that definition, just as Apple censors pornography from their app store, they seem to be censoring "politically charged" applications, as well.

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.

[vlad]

I don't believe it would be legal for Apple to reject apps based on race, ethnicity, or religion of the developers.

[tjogin]

It wouldn't, but not because of free speech laws, but because of anti-discrimination laws.

[andreyf]

Would an application's political slant not be protected under discrimination laws, as well?

[tjogin]

It is censorship. But it isn't illegal, or even morally wrong. Apple is within their rights to censor the content of their App Store.

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.

[netsp]

In order to be censored you need to have a right to express yourself in the first place.

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.