[beamatronic]

"Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes."

It seems Apple has started down a slippery slope. Will they now remove any movie from iTunes that contains the image of a Confederate flag anywhere in the movie?

It begs the question, is there any "fair use" of a Confederate flag, anywhere? Or is it now fully taboo? If so, was this way overdue?

[MBlume]

> Will they now remove any movie from iTunes that contains the image of a Confederate flag anywhere in the movie?

Practically: No, they won't, because film producers are much more powerful than app developers.

[Steko]

"It seems Apple has started down a slippery slope."

A more reasonable interpretation is that there was a vaguely defined rule that was applied in a silly way and it will all be straightened out as we might expect and has happened in the past.

[kbenson]

Although, it's interesting that Apple seems prone to not only making vague (and possibly ill-thought out) rules, but also very aggressively applying those rules before there's been any assessment as to whether they need some tweaking.

[mhurron]

> It seems Apple has started down a slippery slope.

Is it really a slippery slope when they are simply exercising their existing rights as a private entity?

> is there any "fair use" of a Confederate flag, anywhere?

Anywhere individuals/private organizations want.

[jasonlotito]

> Is it really a slippery slope when they are simply exercising their existing rights as a private entity?

Yes. Being a private entity has nothing to do with it.

[ryanobjc]

This is really not unlike banning the nazi flag post WWII germany. The parallels are apt.

Perhaps in time, the flag will lose its emotional charge but that isn't the case now.

[screwedup]

I'm very comfortable with games that display the Nazi flag, why shouldn't the Confederate flag be different?

[andreyf]

Are you in post WWII Germany? The justifications for Apple's or Europe's limits on speech are wholly unaffected by any one person's feeling comfortable with it.

That reasoning aside, I think that ignoring or changing parts of history that some find uncomfortable, even if they evoke strong emotions, seems like a dangerous game. It seems wiser to draw the line at "all speech ought to be protected from those who have power to control it" and then make thoroughly thought-through exceptions with well-grounded and regularly reevaluated justifications.

edit: markbnj makes a good point, that whatever the justification for Germany's limits on free speech are, they do not apply to a game trying to reenact historical events https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779899

[markbnj]

This analogy fails, imo. From the Strafgesetzbuch sec. 86a:

>> Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

I'm no lawyer, and know almost nothing about German law, but this wording would appear to preserve an exception for cases exactly like this one, i.e. artistic or historical portrayal.

[ryanobjc]

then we can argue if the game has civil enlightenment purposes.

Let's put it this way, if the game allows the south to 'win' then its fairly close to not meeting that standard. The reason is because it also serves the purpose of providing alternative fantasies to those who wish to imagine the continuation of southern institutional racism.

[markbnj]

That's an interesting argument, but the statute also included an exception for art, and I think we can agree that the definition of art is broad, and has no requirement for telling the truth about history.