Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTML"but Apple has now appointed itself arbitrator of what is just in poor taste and what is actually "deeply offensive". We look forward to the Internet Watch Foundation referring to Cupertino when faced with difficult decisions about such things."
Dumb, stupid remark. Apple vet what applications run on the iPhone so they can hardly allow themselves to be associated with what many would regard as deeply offensive. As they approve these things it is fundamentally associated with their brand. Should somebody write something like this for a more open programming platform (like the MAC) then Apple wouldn't have been in this position. Also, you can put whatever offensive-to-some video that you like into an iPod, although don't expect Apple to stock it.
Of course you can raise the issue over whether the iPhone should be a completely open platform so anybody could download whatever offensive material you like. But when you get something through a company outlet then don't expect them to be uninterested in the association with their brand.
I should add I hold no brief for Apple, but nobody with a few brain cells to rub together can blame them for this. Clearly the author of this particular article has styled himself after the unreconstructed 1970s student rag mag humour which I recall usually had a page of dead baby jokes. Students - really pushing the boundary of humour then...