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 …
Is read by ignorant peado chasing knuckle draggers, so who really cares? I doubt there are enough oxygen thiefs out there with an ability to use anything but a flidded out fist to use a phone anyway.
I agree - The Sun shouldn't be categorized under news... it should be under fiction.
Welcome to USA
United States of America or probably as per this joke (http://www.anekdot.ru/an/an0812/j081209;10.html) - United States of Absinth.
Boobs - baaaaaaaaaaad, Guns goooooooooooood.
A whole country that needs to go out a bit more, if possible onto beach inhabited by Germans wearing standard German beach uniform: sandals, backpack and a hat. _ONLY_ sandals, backpack and a hat.
Rinse, repeat until sanity is obtained.
Europe rightfully kicked most of its Puritans off the continent. Unfortunately, they went to North America, mostly managed to wipe out the local population, and are now running things in the US and Canada.
To them, showing someone get shot in the face, or getting stabbed on live TV is completely acceptable, but showing a nipple is horrifying. It's a sick, sick society whose attitudes explain so much of what is wrong with the world today.
Frankly, I think that banning the Sun is a good thing, but not for THAT reason.
Hmmm, Page 3
Honestly, if I were the editor of the Sun I'd stop Page 3 tomorrow but when I see a topless piccie of Keeley or Poppy they're often simply gasp-inducing. The thought of those beautiful girls not being there makes me die a little inside. And, yes, I'm a total hypocrite, if my daughter decided to become a glamour model I'd be absolutely mortified. Oh the myriad contradictions of human sexuality...
War is Peace
Reading the article, it reminded me of Orwell, Big Brother, and 1984, then I remembered the commercial Apple used to launch the Macintosh. Have they become what they once mocked?
Could Someone Define Pronography?
Depictions of nudity and sexuality (and possibly other lewd and obscene things) created (solely) for the purpose of obtaining material gain? In that case, the page three falls into the category. They put bare breasts into their paper so that more people would buy it, it's as simple as that. Yes, it's simple entertainment (just like the rest of porn) and it's the "mildest" variety of porn available and it's not something that I find offensive nor do I think that App Store policies aren't a little over the top, but let's call things their real name and not be hypocrites for a change. "Family entertainment", one would think that it's possibly educational content?!
It could be funny.
Now all we need is the Sun to retaliate by running stories about how by allowing shops called "Stormfront" Apple are supporting the white nationalist movement, and then it might kick off into a really entertaining story.
So will they ban safari as it can view major pron? or is that too hypocritical?
i thought due to the allowing of real boobs with iboob but not fake cartoon boobs apple had already said that real boobs were ok!
I guess Apple must deem me obscene every time I point iPhone Safari at http://ifap.to...
There are 2 classes of people. Those who read^H^H^H^H buy the Sun and those who have evolved sufficiently to stand-upright to prevent their knuckles from dragging along the ground.
what is wrong with having an adult category in itunes then problem solved
Page 3 isn't porn
Page 3 is just a lass with her nips on show. Nothing sexual about the image, other than the girl is attractive. Anyone who thinks a bit of natural nudity is somehow wrong should ask themselves why...
"New category in App Store..."
So does this mean the new parental controls will allow pr0n on the iphone?!
The late Bill Hicks...
"So what is pornography? Any image or passage of text, produced with the explicit intention to arouse or sexually stimulate."
"Hmmm, well they had better ban those Wrigley's ads. When I see those two 16 year olds pulling out sticks on that TV ad, it ain't chewing gum I'm thinking about!"
They should probably ban about 75% of all adult product advertising nowadays, as that falls into that definition too. The advertising industry would collapse overnight if we followed that definition and banned pornography!
Uff, for a second there I thought you'd start talking about bestiality, or feline sexuality, or something...
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.
Re: Page 3 isn't porn
It is exploitive and demeaning to the girls who agree to be exploited and demeaned for hard cash regardless!
Of course it's porn
It's just extremely mild porn, or "titilation" as they like to put it. There's no other reason to put some nudity of a young girl in the paper each day. It's not like it's educational or of interest to anyone but teen/adult males.
Is not a newspaper, and is only family freindly if your family consists of retarded rednecks.
Gotta agree with apple on this one.
The sun isn't a newspaper
It's poor quality toilet paper. The best thing you can do with anything of Murdoch's is to wipe your behind with it.
@Page 3 isn't porn
Agree entirely but then again the Sun isn't a newspaper.
AC @ 15:06: You believe sanity can be restored by looking at *NAKED GERMANS*?
Is absolutely the least offensive part of the obscenity that is that vile rag.
Page 3 isn't porn
But it is illegal if the headline for the pictures of famous Ms Fox is correct
"Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels."
Some back issues are illegal
It used to be that some Page 3 girls were only 16.
Under current UK child porn law those pictures are child porn.
I wouldn't call them children, but that's the law.
I now live in America (for my sins) and I am always amazed by attitudes to moral issues on US TV. Here is a list of things that are permitted on network TV:
Penis enlargement adverts (they are called "natural male enhancement" but use gratuitous sexual innuendo to peddle penis pills). These adverts occur on many channels popular with children and during prime time or earlier when kids are likely to be watching.
Graphic violence. Shoot-outs, images of death and mutilation, etc. All allowed at any time of the day or night.
Graphic drug abuse. I watched a Steve-O documentary at the weekend, and they showed him sniffing cocaine and huffing nitrous as well as various other drug related things. There was a written warning about graphic drug abuse being shown, but by showing details kids could learn how to do something and experiment.
Swear words that aren't on the official list of swear words. This includes many words that wouldn't be allowed before the watershed in the UK.
Now for a list of things that aren't allowed.
Any swear words that are on a particular list. This rule applies any time of the day or night. It makes most modern movies unwatchable since they badly dub them. It also accounts for the ridiculous use of the following sed script in the Battlestar Galactica scripts: s/fuck/frek/g.
Any nudity of any sort ever. Again making many modern films unwatchable.
In the UK I used to record loads of films from TV to watch. In the US I'm considering getting rid of cable because it costs too much and I watch nothing.
@Welcome to USA
Why do they wear a hat to the beach?
Not just Sun readers...
You don't need to be a Sun reader to appreciate a nicely-proportioned nubile... like our favourite moderatrix, for instance. ;-)
Ok Apple are really starting to wear on my nerves. They make great kit and I love the OS but business wise it's getting to a point that even the positive points often aren't enough to outweigh some of the mindless bull shit stunts they pull. This whole amorphous cloak and dagger censoring of the App store is going to bite them square in the ass if they aren't careful (I wont even go into the whole NIN app fiasco). And sooner rather than later. If it does I for one will be standing with the rest of their customer base who actually have a brain saying "serves you right for starting to act like such an ass".
i dont know which to hate more apple or the sun
@AC 15:37 & general comment.
"i thought due to the allowing of real boobs with iboob but not fake cartoon boobs apple had already said that real boobs were ok!"
Uhh ... It's been a while since I was last in Blighty, but from what I can remember, the boobs on Page 3 were rarely (if ever) "real", as in home-grown (as it were).
And for the record, not all Yanks are Puritans. The sexually repressed set are the right-wing religious minority.
 That's got to be the ugliest sentence I've ever constructed! My English A-level teacher is probably spinning in her grave :-)
Re: adult cat
Not quite. There's no reason why a newspaper-reader application should be forced into such a category. The application got banned only because one of the newspapers available through it traditionally publishes one picture of a topless girl on it's third page. While I consider Sun's "our tits are all about family values" attitude total BS, Apple's decision (and proposal for resubmission of the app once a suitable category is available) is no better.
I remember a story on page three about a woman who may (or more likely, may not) have flashed at her neighbour. According to the Sun she said "look at my t*ts". The asterisk was theirs not mine. What a shower of hypocritical shit. So let's applaud a random act of censorship for getting it right for once. It was bound to happen some time.
The real reason ...
... for not having a Sun reading app, is that the Sun should be obscene and not heard (groan).
Really, it does publish a lot of obscenities - such as it's version of the truth. However, nudity is a long way from obscenity unless you're from a prudish, intolerant country where the uninformed rants of the vocal few have completely overridden the mature and unspoken attitudes of the overwhelming majority.
As Ive said before
In the USofA you can have as much guns and violence as you like, so long as there no tits.
Unfortunately, over here we are 'different' & I dont care if The Sun is completely devoid of any news, or whatever constitutes as news.
So hands off our tits & go and shoot off with anything that moves.
Sun - porno
If you want to worry about links between pornography and British media - try looking up Mr Richard Desmond and the Daily Star....
The real obscenity...
...lies in calling the Sun a "Newspaper." That is akin to calling anything a politician says "truth."
Mine's the one with today's Times sticking out of the pocket.
an old one...
Ever noticed how sex is used to sell everything from chewing gum to booze to cars? But as soon as you want to pay for it, you're a criminal!
Big Bro Jobs
"By Michael Hawkes Posted Tuesday 5th May 2009 15:25 GMT
Reading the article, it reminded me of Orwell, Big Brother, and 1984, then I remembered the commercial Apple used to launch the Macintosh. Have they become what they once mocked?"
That TV spot was just a fine product of their Ministry of Truth, actually, announcing openness by selling a completely closed product (at the time), the antithesis of the Apple II.
Remember that incoherence in a commie dictatorship is not a byproduct: it is a requirement and a tool. Hence Apple's policies :D
The Sun readers dont care who runs the country as long as shes got big tits.
YOU are whats wrong with the world today. YOU assume they are being exploided but you don´t know them, you don´t know anything about their industri and you clearly don´t know how to think before you type. Just stop and go away.
@stizzleswick: the "Times"?
You mean the once good paper that has since become a mouthpiece for Murdoch, owner of News Corp. and The Sun? Even though I often disagreed with the analyses in The Times, I used to buy it because it was quality analysis. Since it's been owned by Murdoch, it has become an opinion paper. Plus, not a penny of mine is going to the old bastard.
Get over yourselves
I am lucky in that at work I have a large range of newspapers to read, and I tend to look over all of them.
All those of you who dismiss the Sun and its readership are bigoted elitists. The Sun carries more news items than most "quality" papers and highlights wars/major events in remote countries that go unreported in the better written press, even if the reports are just a few words. Also it is good to know which way a major element of our society is thinking. Don't forget the Sun is THE paper the political parties want to get onside as that is where most votes will come from come General Election day.
If a Apple considers a topless woman 'obscene', they must be one hell of puritanical organisation.
@ Iam Me
"Ok Apple are really starting to wear on my nerves."
Don't you mean "Apple are really starting to get on my tits"?
Other than that I agree with everything you wrote.
...They don't object to the blatant scaremongering, sensationalism, bigotry, hypocrisy, political toadying and outright lying that passes for journalism in our nation's favourite 'newspaper', but are terrified of a couple of plastic tits on page 3? Sounds just like the Merkins to me.
I find the Page 3 stuff more odd than Erotic nothing sexy there
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook