Apple brands UK tabloid 'obscene'
More iBoob action? Cor!
Apple may put News International's nose out of joint with its definition of 'obscene', after rejecting a newspaper-reading iPhone app for reasons of rudeness.
Newspaper(s), an application that renders content from the world's newspapers, was rejected by iTunes because it included the UK's Sun newspaper - complete with topless Page Three girl - on the grounds that it violates the iTunes policy on "obscene content". But the Sun reckons it's a "family" paper, and takes accusations of pornography-pushing very seriously indeed.
According to a report on iLounge the publisher of Newspaper(s) was recommended to resubmit the application once OS 3.0 is released, after which a suitable category will be available, but instead decided to remove the offending newspaper from the app.
Many years ago, when one UK mobile operator started putting Page Three girls into an "adult" section of their WAP site, they received swift rebuttal from News International. The owners of the Sun advised that the topless lovelies were not pornography, but just fun, family content. The operator swiftly created a "glamour" section of the site, which was acceptable to the tab, just about.
We contacted the Sun for comment, but other than expressing incredulity at Apple's position and promising to look into it they declined to comment further. Still, you can be sure that News International will be having a few choice words with the boys in Cupertino. ®
Page 3 is porn
Like most other Reg readers I feel utter contempt for the Sun and its readers. I also feel utter contempt for the fact that breasts are more shocking to Americans than graphic violence - look at the Janet Jackson incident for example.
However, the bare breasts on page 3 are not natural nudity. They are there solely for the sexual titillation of the male readers. I have absolutely no problem with pictures of breasts in some circumstances, so I was right behind the breastfeeding women on Facebook, but page 3, while rather mild and relatively harmless, is nevertheless pornographic. I fully agree with Apple on this.
To use the example one of the earlier posters gave, would I object to my daughter appearing on page 3 (she is only three so it is somewhat unlikely at the moment)? Damn right I would. If she were an adult and there were a photograph of her breastfeeding her baby published would I mind that? Certainly not. There is a very clear difference between the two.
New definition of obscene
What Apple charges for hardware.
"the minimum age to get your "norks" out is 18 here (uk)"
Noted. Ta :-)
Any idea when they changed it from 16? Or were me & my GF breaking the law 33 years ago?