Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Apple says no to iPhone apps as political attack ads

Here's a good political-philosophy question: In a conflict between property rights and free speech, which constitutional privilege should prevail?

CNet's Declan McCullagh raised the point recently in a blog post about Malibu Republican congressional candidate Ari David's battle with Apple. The iCensors at Apple blocked an iPhone app that David wanted to distribute that criticized the Democratic incumbent in California's 30th Congressional District, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). The company told David's campaign that the app was rejected for violating its rules against defamatory content.

The app displays a series of messages about Waxman's record in Congress. The supposedly objectionable excerpts that David posted on his site don't strike me as defamatory, at least not in the context of a political campaign. They're all opinions about actions that Waxman really has taken.

For example, one of the messages says Waxman "TRIED TO STRANGLE family farms with insane Soviet-Style regulation," a reference to the congressman's support for a bill to combat food-borne E. coli outbreaks with more food-production rules, inspections and, potentially, recalls. Some folks might appreciate the government's attention to that problem, but then, spinach isn't for everyone.

David attacked Apple in a blog post Monday, noting that the company had approved applications that display "irrational quotes from the Bible" and provide a multimedia biography of Che Guevara but blocked one that offered controversial excerpts from the Koran. His conclusion? "If you are a lefty, a commie, a radical muslim, an enviro-statist greenie or a Democrat party candidate with socialist/statist leanings that you wish to share far and wide, then have at it and create something for the itunes app store. But if you are a conservative who possesses dangerous notions like you love America, worship a just and forgiving God or are in support of our troops when they go to war against the enemies of free people, Apple says you need not apply."

I think the explanation is simpler. If you forcefully express opinions in an app, Apple may ask you to take your business elsewhere. Steve Jobs' prime directive, as he made clear in his e-mail battle with Valleywag's Ryan Tate over Apple blocking iPad porn apps (as well as his tiff with Adobe over the latter's Flash technology), is to give users of Apple products the best experience possible. That means deterring app developers from not only causing technical problems but also offending users. To Apple, this is a strategic approach to a competitive marketplace, as Jobs explains to Tate:

It's not about freedom, it's about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users. Users, developers and publishers can do whatever they like - they don't have to buy or develop or publish on iPads if they don't want to.

Personally, I think Apple should allow any compatible application on the iPhone as long as it's designed to perform a legal function. But even though I disagree with Apple's choices, I also think it's Apple's prerogative to decide what software can run on the products it sells. It doesn't have a monopoly in mobile phones or tablet computers, so there's no reason for the government to regulate. There's no free speech issue here because Apple isn't the government and it doesn't have the power to silence people. And until I can make a more successful product than the iPhone, my judgment about the wisdom of Apple's strategy is probably worth no more than you're paying for it.

Meanwhile, maybe David could develop an app that gives a multimedia presentation of his own life story, or accurately displays quotes from his four GOP primary opponents.

-- Jon Healey

 

Comments () | Archives (4)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Podesta

Obviously, Ari David is just trying to get some attention for his hopeless campaign by having his name linked to Apple's in headlines.

The App Store has offered political material that is mainstream, often nonpartisan. But, it should not allow candidates to turn the store into a means for low-rent opinion attacks on opponents by those who cannot afford to advertise in newspapers, on radio and television or on the Internet.

CJ

Good to hear Apple is keeping the app store clean from hateful smut.

Zuma Hans

Ari David of Malibu?

Never heard of him.

Maybe he has a "Meg Whitman" style record.

Ari David

http://www.aridavidforcongress.com/RecentNews/tabid/67/vw/1/ItemID/15/Default.aspx

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/apples-struggle-with-political-app/?src=busln

ARI DAVID

DECLARES VICTORY

AGAINST

APPLE THE GOLIATH


In a surprise reversal, Apple computer has approved my iphone application and is allowing it to be distributed in the iphone app store. Apple had originally declared portions of the application, which are critical of my opponent, Congressman Henry Waxman, to be defamatory of Waxman and thus, containing inappropriate content.

I always asserted that the material in the app was perfectly appropriate because it was critical of Waxman‘s policy positions and actions he has taken as an elected official. The material critical of Waxman was also important to include in the iphone application in order to illustrate the policy differences between Waxman and myself.
If Apple had continued to reject such material they would have severely compromised my right to free political speech because if political discourse is too controversial to discuss in public online spaces like the app store, where else will such discourse be banned?

It’s nice that Apple decided to do the right thing is this case and I look forward to having everyone download the application which is available for free on itunes.

Here is a link to the app

http://appshopper.com/news/ari-david

I hope you enjoy it and share it with everyone you know.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...