Supporters of gay rights are celebrating a successful effort to pressure Apple into removing from its store a controversial app created by a group that works to “free” gay people of their sexual orientation. After more than 140,000 people signed a petition at Change.org calling for the app, created by Exodus International, to be removed, Apple bowed to the wisdom of the crowd...As a speech gatekeeper, Apple should embrace free-speech values and go with viewpoint neutrality. It has made a terrible, embarrassing mistake, both because it is wrong to censor and because it will now have a hell of a time deciding which pressure groups to respond to and what counts as offensive enough to censor.
In other words, something is objectionable if enough people object to it. If that’s going to be the standard, Apple is going to be seeing a lot more petitions. You can be sure the religious conservatives who found themselves on the losing end of this culture-war skirmish have been taking notes, and are already at work drawing up a list of all the gay-themed apps in the app store that are offensive to their beliefs. What will Apple say the day it gets a petition with 140,001 signatures calling for banning Grindr, an app popular with gay men looking for a quick hit of romance?
If your fingers are itching to type out the news that the constitutional right to free speech only protects you from government censorship, settle down. Free speech values extend beyond what you can get a court to enforce. I am arguing directly to Apple, as a matter of good policy and good values. Obviously, Apple cares about good values and responds, in its conception of good policy, when it is persuaded by arguments about good policy and good values: That's why it engaged in censorship! I'm arguing on the other side of the Change.org petition.
Posts
110 comments:
As a speech gatekeeper, Apple should embrace free-speech values and go with viewpoint neutrality.
Speech gatekeeper? Try the new Disney.
One day, there'll be an Apple theme park complete with iPhone-reservation rides, and iPad resorts. Mark me.
I'm off for the day. Enjoy your free speech whilst it lasts.
Cheers,
Victoria
P.S.: Grindr? Paging Palladian.
That's what Grindr is for? I though the name referred to a type of sandwitch.
That explains the response I got when I used it to try to find a sub.
Poor Apple. It's the Obama of technology companies: Socially liberal to its core, rode a wave of popular approval to dominance, and now has to straddle the line between appeasing the base (how many Republicans do you think wait in line, year after year, for the newest iPhone?) and maintaining its popular appeal.
Apple should have kept the app. And those 140,000 petitioners should have channeled their energy into a pro-gay app. An app store of ideas.
Or... people shouldn't buy into a closed ecosystem in the first place. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this since their leader believes that limited choice = freedom.
@Ignorance: I can just imagine. "Looking for a 12-incher. The meatier the better. Keep it wrapped because I'm in a hurry."
Apple started down this road long ago. It has long refused to allow apps which, for example, make fun of politicians with caricatures. Once they started going down that path, and pulling apps for anything other than security concerns or perhaps outright pornography, then they left themselves open to this sort of political pressure.
People who don't like it can get a Droid or a Blackberry or some other phone. Me, I think banning that app is silly, and a ridiculous waste of time for the protesters to focus on (there are much bigger issues facing gay people in this country than this app, which got far more attention from the protests than it ever would have had on its own), but that's their right.
From the beginning, Apple set itself up as the arbiter of decorum and good taste in the app store, and so they are correctly assigned their own share of responsibility for the contents of ALL apps in the app store. Because of their past actions, they cannot claim, "hey, we're just a store; we're not responsible for the objectionable content of the products we sell."
Sorry, Professor: my fingers are still itchy. Apple can do what it wants. I can't stand much of what it does, but I'll defend to the death its right to be stupid!
If Apple thinks repression of Free Speech is good for their bottom line, why shouldn't they do it? It's not like they're the Government.
Go buy a different tablet and develop apps for it if it pisses you off.
"how many Republicans do you think wait in line, year after year, for the newest iPhone?"
Apple's biggest fan is Rush Limbaugh. He's always raving about his Apple stuff.
I am wondering how an iPhone app could cure gayness. Some kind of aversion therapy involving show tunes and WNBA broadcasts?
"Sorry, Professor: my fingers are still itchy. Apple can do what it wants."
Where did I say it couldn't? I'm trying to influence what it wants, just as Change.org did.
"I am wondering how an iPhone app could cure gayness. Some kind of aversion therapy involving show tunes and WNBA broadcasts?"
I don't know, but maybe some people who love gayness might find it amusing. What difference does it make if it works? I'm sure there are lots of weight-loss apps that don't make you lose weight, etc. etc.
@Ann: Rush doesn't wait in line for anything. He has interns for that. Even so, I consider him an outlier. Same with Hugh Hewitt: he raves about Apple without any provocation on his radio show. Send Meade to the iPhone 5 launch to take a poll.
"Where did I say it couldn't?"
You didn't, and I didn't imply that you did. But you entitled your post "Apple's repression of free speech" and reiterated that phrase in your post.
This is a problem, because Americans don't know what "free speech" means. They barely know what "rights" are. Words and phrases like these should have real meanings that law professors and bloggers (and commenters on blogs) reinforce.
Free speech was not harmed here. Not even "free speech values" were in play, because Apple apparently expressed its own speech values by banning the app.
I think this application is awful, but don't see a reason to restrict it. I'm guessing if they developed a version for Android, it would be allowed to appear in their marketplace.
Then again, Google is all about openness.
Well, just so long as everyone is thinking different the same.
This story reminds me of the 2006 outcry when Oregon State University researchers found a cure for gayness in sheep.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/curing_gay_sheep_/
"Navratilova [lesbian tennis player] defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests."
I think efforts to have ineffectual gay cures like this application banned only move the anti-gay lobby toward more extreme measures, one of which will eventually work.
Actually, looking at it a little more in-depth--this application is sort of hilarious. Curing gayness? When did being gay become a disease or a choice?
This app, though, has a demonstrable negative effect. Victims of these programs are more likely to commit suicide. You could argue that gay hookups lead to STIs, but to my knowledge Grindr isn't promoted by a pro-gay sex organization. That movement organizes itself.
"Obviously, Apple cares about good values..."
That's not obvious at all.
I mean, it's obvious that Apple has values about which they care, and consider to be good: style, functionality, etc.
But it's pretty apparent that freedom ain't one of them.
What business is it of ANYONE'S what apps I choose to download onto my iPhone? I'm with you on this, Althouse: Apple is being shortsighted and silly.
Those who with disagree with Apple ought to contact the company directly, ESPECIALLY if they're stockholders (which, for example, we are.).
Apple should have kept the app. And those 140,000 petitioners should have channeled their energy into a pro-gay app. An app store of ideas.
I also agree with this, although, to be clear, I'd be as totally uninterested in downloading this hypothetical app as I was in the previously existing one.
I thought the same thing at first, but then I realized that this isn't just about a "disapproved-of opinion." This is about standing up and saying that it is not okay to treat an entire group of people like they are less than the rest of society, like there is something wrong with them. I don't care what someone's religion says, it's not the kind of thing that we should stand for as a society, and the only way those behaviors change is if people stop tolerating it. Would we be having this discussion if Apple took down an app that was based on the idea that black people are not as desirable as white people?
"And those 140,000 petitioners should have channeled their energy into a pro-gay app."
There is Jack'd (social network), Grindr (social network), GIRL (Gay Internet Radio Live), My Gay Agenda, Gay Cities, The Edge Gay News Reader...
Julius, you can't "make" gay people become straight. Being gay is not a choice; it's a sexual orientation.
ugh... sorry for repost... Google locked me out of me account...:
The fucking mob strikes again!
Apple hesitated on pulling the plug on this App for a long time, you know. They demurred until nearly every self-righteous Leftist with an internet connection was demanding that they do so.
It was a lose-lose for them: Pull it and put a nail in the coffin of free speech and freedom-to-App. Or don't pull it and the mob gets even bigger and louder and becomes an even more problematic business issue.
Apple needs (and wants!) to focus on products, not politics. While I wish they had stood up to the mob and not pulled the App, I understand why they did. I do not think that doing so left a very good taste in their mouths.
We need a bigger, more vociferous mob to demand that corporations support free speech and not become censors of content. I'm glad that Althouse supports this. Folks like TechDirt have been very vocal along these lines; in fact, the idea that technology should be viewpoint-neutral pretty much pervades the tech industry. It's usually the companies from old industries-- such as phone, cable, and old media-- that cause problems, not leading-edge companies like Apple and Google.
Tech freedom is always under attack. It is nice to see a "conservative" like Althouse blog about it, because it is usually those on the Right doing the attacking.
And Apple is not Disney, Victoria. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about there. But at least you are not so off-base and delusional about Apple as Coketown is.
One more thing:
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING TO MAKE GAY PEOPLE STRAIGHT!
Nothing wrong with it at all! Why is everybody on the Left so fucking sensitive about it? Besides, having homosexual inclinations can be really really problematic for someone who doesn't want them, causing lots of suffering. If someone can help these people, they are better off and the world is better off.
@MiaZagora: Great! A plethora of options for gay and gay-friendly iPhone users! So the question is, with so many pro-gay apps available, why target one anti-gay app? There's little evidence that the app was even very popular.
And another question: Since when is "social networking" the same as "finding someone to have anonymous sex with"?
Julius, you can't "make" gay people become straight. Being gay is not a choice; it's a sexual orientation.
How do you know-- for sure? I don't think it can be done with religion; that approach doesn't make sense. But what about with psychological methods, perhaps some that haven't been invented yet?
What about someone who is excessively fascinated with heterosexual BDSM, say, participating in it to the point that he or she develops concerns about his own behavior and wants to change?
Would you deny such a person access to something that he or she thinks might help?
I think it makes a huge difference whether or not the silly thing works. And it does not work!
Which brings us back to the frightened gays who fear an app that could not work! What is wrong with those guys, that a straight white evangelical like me is completely confident that such a thing would not work and they are frightened of it.
They need to come out of the closet regarding their fear and own poor view of homosexuals, thinking that gay people need to be protected from such silliness. Or just admit they are straight and be done with it.
Trey
UGH! My original long and carefully-worded comment is gone...
I think that there are a lot of sick, religious lunatics in this world that would try to force someone into becoming what they are not. If you're a homosexual and are ashamed of it, go ahead and try the sickening methods used by most of these nuts today--shock therapy, etc. It's not going to change your sexual orientation, especially considering it's genetic.
Being gay isn't a sin, and it's certainly not a choice. Being gay is merely a genetically pre-determined sexual orientation that means you like members of the same sex. Like I said before--I think this app is disgusting and awful, but I would still allow it in the app store.
The app appears to violate Apple's existing review policies, whereas Grindr does not.
I would recommend that people who don't like Apple's policies develop apps for one of the other handheld devices instead. I avoid Apple for that very reason.
Apple already made its decision on being a gatekeeper.
It won't allow pornography-based apps.
I'll accept this trade off.
Here's what Exodus International had to say about this. Here's the part I thought was interesting:
Our desire was simply to provide information to individuals exploring and looking for answers that are consistent with their own beliefs.
If that's the case, then their market consists of individuals struggling with homosexual feelings who already believe homosexuality is a sin and that people choose to act upon their physical tendencies. To those in that kind of struggle, apparently the GLBT movement thinks they should only hear one side of the story.
Folks in this situation often tell stories of harassment growing up. Apparently, after years of bullying, they've perfected the art.
Supporters of gay rights are celebrating a successful effort to pressure Apple into removing
But see, that is what "tolerant" progressives do!
They remove things.
Limit things.
But they're all for freedom of choice. Just ask them.
Being gay is not a choice;
Something you can not provide any evidence for.
Being gay isn't a sin
Yes it is. I'll be happy to provide you with relevant quotes from the bible if you like.
Being gay is merely a genetically pre-determined sexual orientation
This is an assertion with no basis in reality.
Look, we're talking here about California homos, ok?
These people are second to none in their fascistic fervor.
No way Apple is going to go up against them if it comes down to a matter of controversial speech.
Jay,
Your ignorance makes me sad. Seriously. There have been, quite literally, hundreds of scientific studies linking genetics and homosexuality. I'm sorry that you're too caught up in your own world to even attempt to acknowledge them. Please, go back to the 1950s and continue to believe there's no such thing as a "gay."
Jay,
Please, provide the quotes. I look forward to it.
Why would you think Apple believes in free speech?
Anyone who puts themself in a gatekeeper role, obviously does not.
Apple wants to be a gatekeeper precisely because it does not believe in freedom.
Corporate control of what you can do with a mobile phone is the opposite of freedom.
Apple's motivation here may be purely rent-seeking (to make money off every app) but that doesn't change the anti-freedom impact--and it's not a legitimate excuse for curtailing freedom.
Do not buy Apple products. Period.
@Ren,
There is no scientific consensus on the cause of homosexuality in either genetics or pyschology.
Truth is, we just don't know yet.
We don't have time to go through those "hundreds" of studies, but there are not "hundreds" of twin studies to prove a genetic basis for homosexuality.
Actually, if you read the paper from the guy who argued for the "disease" model of homsexuality, he doesn't do such a good job arguing for a disease based approach as he does a good job of utterly demolishing the genetic model.
I'll see if I can find a link, but I'm at work and should be on to other things.
I wonder if the public accomadation argument would apply here. Or something similar to radio where you can forbid certain words but not viewpoints. Aren't the frequencies cell phones use federally licensed?
Apple exposes itself to antitrust legal action which Holder's DOJ will soon push. (J/K)
Obviously, Apple cares about good values...
Snorfle!!!
Apple cares about money, and knows that gays have more money, and are more likely to blow it on iPad 2s, than fundies.
Not to be pedantic - and I'm not sure Ren will be any less saddened and disgusted by this clarification - but being gay isn't considered a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts, however, is considered sinful - just as it is for heterosexual sex outside marriage.
Nobody ever promised that being a Christian was going to be easy, or popular, although I think we were warned we would all fall short of perfection.
I think this application is awful, but don't see a reason to restrict it. I'm guessing if they developed a version for Android, it would be allowed to appear in their marketplace.
So, you think it's awful.
What about people who would like to cease having homosexual relationships?
They don't have the right to want that?
You don't think they exist?
They aren't supposed to exist because PC doctrine says they shouldn't exist?
You can't imagine people who have deeply held religious convictions, and homosexual desires, who would like to disavow those homosexual desires?
shoutingthomas,
I don't know what your problem is, but like I said--I'm all for allowing it in the marketplace. I don't approve of the application, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to use it.
I think that people who can't accept homosexuals are intolerant bigots. I don't care what role religion plays--accept people for who they are. If you're homosexual and want to try to use psychological tricks to cease being gay, fine, go ahead.
I think that people who can't accept homosexuals are intolerant bigots. I don't care what role religion plays--accept people for who they are. If you're homosexual and want to try to use psychological tricks to cease being gay, fine, go ahead.
Didn't say you were in favor of banning it.
To put it another way...
Let's assume a hetero person was compelled to commit sex acts that he or sex felt truly ashamed of.
Do you think it unusual that that would happen?
Do you think it unusual that that person might look to religion or psychotherapy to try to cease that behavior?
I don't see any difference.
There seems to be here some sort of special political character to homosexuality. We're supposed to celebrate it. That's a political dictum.
I don't see any sense in that.
@rocketeer67
There is also the tendency among some gay activists when challenged by Christians as to the "sinfulness" of their orientation to go more biblical literalist than the fundies, ingnoring the fact that for the largest part of the world-wide Christian community, the Bible is only one part of the total Christian message.
For those (e.g. Roman and Orthodox
Catholics) who believe in tradition and a visible church guided by Providence, the fix is in: the Church is against homosexual acts, and dat's dat.
There also against jacking off, too, and somehow that hasn't driven all us wankers out.
I have to believe that an anti-wanking app would be even less likely to work than the anti-gay app.
To continue my own posting...
A notion has developed that the only thing that makes gays feel guilty about being gay is societal disapproval.
What if that proves not to be true?
What if shame about being gay, for some people, exists despite the general societal celebration of gayety? I'm willing to bet this will be (and is) reality.
Although many women of my generation have been very promiscuous, I know quite a few who are quite shamed by this and would like to change their behavior.
There is no societal disapproval of their bouncing from man to man, but the shame still exists.
How do we know that disapproval of gays isn't genetic?
Suppose there were an app devoted to cochlear implants for the deaf. (There may well be one, for all I know.)
There is a capital-D Deaf culture that insists that trying to join the hearing community -- anything from lip-reading to attempting to speak to implants -- is a sort of treason. ASL is a language on a par with any other, and no one ought to feel handicapped in any way by not being able to hear.
So if a deaf person would rather not be Deaf, and would like to try a cochlear implant ... how many Deaf folks would it take for Apple to cancel the app?
There is always irony when a business enterprise acts in response to perceived (read mediated, PR firms) popular opinion. For example, Sargento Foods came out early as a strong boycott company against Glenn Beck of Fox News yet today they are being pilloried with a boycott from the pro-union (at all costs) solidarity tribe. So censorship does not pay off. Ann is right – the right side of national politics will notice censorship as the Orwellian tool it is. They just may start buying Sargento products – trust me, I have heard about this at recent parties attended among right leaning folks – LOL – time to buy Sargento products again. This time it’s personal – throw Glenn Beck (who we never even really watched because we are all at work or sleeping during his air time) under the bus. For every goofy liberal boycott, be assured there is a vibrant conservative boycott.
It is a bit unsettling, at first, to think of Apple as a control freak, because it is completely at odds with their corporate image. Weren’t these the guys who aired the famous Super Bowl ads showing suited, blindfolded executives marching like lemmings off a cliff? Isn’t this the company that even now runs ads picturing the Dalai Lama (except in Hong Kong) and Einstein and other offbeat rebels?
It is indeed the same company, and the fact that they have been able to plant this image of themselves as creative and rebellious free-thinkers in the minds of so many intelligent and media-hardened skeptics really gives one pause. It is testimony to the insidious power of expensive slick ad campaigns and, perhaps, to a certain amount of wishful thinking in the minds of people who fall for them.
- Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning was the Command Line
If I get enough people to sign a petition do you think I can get ANGRY BIRDS removed from the app store? That's an app that really offends me.
It’s also ironic that Metcalf’s Sentry Foods at Hilldale is on the big list for Madison locals to boycott – they are the store that posts “Food Miles” on products that tell consumers how many miles a product travelled before being sold in their store. This is especially egregious because the donations given to Walker were private and not corporate. Kwik Trip of LaCrosse announced two months ago that they were bringing 1,700 NEW Wisconsin jobs to our state with new stores and they are on the ‘evil doers’ boycott list. Oh yes, Dane County’s biggest private sector employer used to be Oscar Mayer buy now it’s Epic Systems where you would be fired – certainly never hired – if you had a trace of any speech towards anything standing that is not Democrat or Code Pink approved. I feel so sorry for the folks whose speech is so terribly enslaved at Epic Systems. Must be awful.
"If I get enough people to sign a petition do you think I can get ANGRY BIRDS removed from the app store? That's an app that really offends me."
Pig.
WV: froxam. Japanese for stuff that floats in the water.
Just read a story that Harry Reid is trying to get all the app stores--RIM's, Android's, and Apple's--to remove delete any app that alerts users to DUI checkpoints. RIM is complying, Android said no, and Apple is indecided.
There have been, quite literally, hundreds of scientific studies linking genetics and homosexuality.
Laugh out loud funny.
There has been no study demonstrating that homosexuality is innate.
Not one.
Please, go back to the 1950s and continue to believe there's no such thing as a "gay."
Um, I never said there is no such thing as "gay"
Want to take a guess as to why you're arguing against a strawman?
Ren said...
Jay,
Please, provide the quotes. I look forward to it.
Er, ok:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Fact:
being gay is: abnormal (the overwhelming majority of people are not gay), immoral (see: the bible), and unhealthy (ays have higher incidences of STD’s, HIV, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide than heterosexuals).
I think that people who can't accept homosexuals are intolerant bigots
I think that people who can't accept pedophiles are intolerant bigots.
I think that people who can't accept polygamists are intolerant bigots.
I think that people who can't accept those having sex with animals are intolerant bigots...
...isn't this fun?
Jay, go pound your god somewhere else. You could probably make some sweet bucks on the preacher circuit.
Back on topic...
Apple is selling/giving the content through its auspices, and therefore has the right to control that content. End of story. They are under no obligation to provide balanced content; no more so than The New York Times is.
Having said that, I think Apple is stupid to ditch the app. It opens them to charges of hypocrisy - and the action is hypocritical - and does their brand no favors. Apple used to be all about "think different," but I guess that's only if it's Steve Jobs "different."
And to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds: I don't want to hear another goddamn word about Walmart banning certain CDs it deems objectionable.
Everyone here is a piker. Go over to /. and read a thread on this topic.
Bunch'a wussies.
Jay,
If you can assure me that you take all the other strictures in Leviticus as seriously as this one, I'll be seriously impressed.
To which I ought to have added that being left-handed is "abnormal" ("the overwhelming majority of people are not left-handed). Worse yet, it's sinister. No, really.
We must therefore train all left-handed people to favor the right hand, yes?
Arch Sex Behav. 2010 Feb;39(1):75-80. Epub 2008 Jun 7.
Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.
Långström N, Rahman Q, Carlström E, Lichtenstein P.
Centre for Violence Prevention, Karolinska Institutet, P.O. Box 23000, 104 35, Stockholm, Sweden. niklas.langstrom@ki.se
Abstract
There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.
PMID: 18536986 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Michelle Dulak Thomson --
"If you can assure me that you take all the other strictures in Leviticus as seriously as this one, I'll be seriously impressed."
So you're equating homosexuality with pork?
So you're equating homosexuality with pork?
Heh. Well, given that the vast majority of christians have no objection to eating pork, that does raise and interesting problem... Matthew dug on the pig, but remained silent on homosexuality.
Chef Mojo said...
Jay, go pound your god somewhere else. You could probably make some sweet bucks on the preacher circuit.
"My God"
Hysterical.
I love watching you people in action.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Jay,
If you can assure me that you take all the other strictures in Leviticus as seriously as this one, I'll be seriously impressed.
And then what?
You do realize that the poster pretended that homosexuality wasn't a sin, right?
You do realize what you said has nothing to do with that, correct?
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
To which I ought to have added that being left-handed is "abnormal"
To which, is meaningless.
You do realize being left-handed is 10 times more common than being gay, right?
We must therefore train all left-handed people to favor the right hand, yes?
It is comical you believe this is actually an anology.
You do realize that homosexual behavior has resulted in the death of millions and comes with a cost of billions annually in public health spending, right?
Additionally, you can realize that changing the cornerstone of civilization for 2 millennium to appease a radical homosexual agenda may not be on par with being left-handedness right, sweetheart?
Right.
I predict this will make a huge dent in the market for bigoted/homophobic Apple users. 'Cause that's what visionary new technologies are all about: nursing tired old prejudices.
This post is another specimen that belongs in the zoo of bad ideas. Althousian spectacles like this one are as close as we get to witnessing archeological artifacts in real-time.
Jay is obviously gay.
The biggest kick I get is when I can come onto the Althouse blog and witness intellectual extinction in action.
Jay, if straight people can choose to become or not become gay, this suggests that temptation would be an issue.
So what I'd like you to do for me is to describe all the times that you've been tempted to engage in homosexual behavoir and how you you summoned the urge to repress it.
Yes it is. I'll be happy to provide you with relevant quotes from the bible if you like.
Like David kissed Jonathan till dawn because he loved Jonathan with the same love he had for women?
First,
The biggest kick I get is when I can come onto the Althouse blog and witness intellectual extinction in action.
Then,
what I'd like you to do for me is to describe all the times that you've been tempted to engage in homosexual behavoir
Without a trace of irony, no less!
Again, parodying you people is no longer possible.
Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene ,
I kinda of find it amusing that gay folks forgot that at times they have to give lip service to BI people or those that have varying degrees of same sex attraction. This is not uncommon for people over periods of their life. So yes for some people it might be a "choice"
@Jay:
I love watching you people in action.
Jay, I'm genuinely curious; which "people" do you think I am?
I'll even sport you a handicap by admitting to atheism.
"Julius, you can't "make" gay people become straight. Being gay is not a choice; it's a sexual orientation."
It is a whole more complicated than that; so much so that I'll start a numbered list:
1) Focusing on human homosexuality is misleading. Homosexuality should be understood in the natural world, before we reach sweeping conclusions about human homosexuality.
2) You are beginning the story in the middle; people are not born sexually and emotionally developed. Even so, change of sexual preference does occur in human beings.
3) It is not 'a choice' but a number of choices that people make that can potentially affect sexual preference; say, becoming obese affects your hormonal balance, which may affect sexual preference in borderline cases.
There is more, but I think I've made my point.
C'mon, Jay. Get with the program. Which "people" am I?
Stop it, Chef. You're making the little bastard feel tempted.
It's like poking sticks at a dumb rabid animal while he's confined to his cage.
Jay,
You're the one that said that being straight was a choice, right?
SO tell me the day you made that choice and why you did.
Come on. Be the good little dildo that you are and tell us about your adventures in choosing the straight and narrow path. With all the homosexual influences in society, pulling and tugging you in the direction of a gay lifestyle, surely deciding to be heterosexual was no easy decision for you.
I know you can do it. You are no parody! You are real! Explain yourself!
Yes James. Because being bisexual involves choosing people of either gender, it requires as much choice as a straight person does when deciding which opposite-sex partner to be with.
wv: duchou
A few of you seem to require mental duchous.
What about people who would like to cease having homosexual relationships?
I would advise them to stop having sex with people of the same gender.
Why you need an app to not have sex is a mystery to me. Most people are able to not have sex even when they would much rather NOT not be having sex.
Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene --
"Because being bisexual involves choosing people of either gender, it requires as much choice as a straight person does when deciding which opposite-sex partner to be with."
Using that as a basis, it actually requires a little more.
All right all right! I give up!
Oligonicella and James H obviously have a much more personal sort of knowledge of non-heterosexual orientations than I ever will.
I was just using logic. Forgive me.
@Ritmo:
See, Jay's problem is that he probably figured out that I'm a step ahead.
"My God"
Hysterical.
That's his giveaway. His big cosmic joke and punchline. "My God." Jay's point of view takes me for a fool, because his god is everyone's god, whether they like it or not. They don't have a choice in the matter, and he's merely the enforcer.
People like me mystify him. Because god/God doesn't exist; it is simply a construct of a superstitious mind that can't deal with the terrifying finality of death.
I don't have his problem. When I die, I know I become wormfood or ashes. And that's it! No heaven. No hell. No god(s). Nothing. Zip. Nada. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, baby. From starstuff I came, and to starstuff I'll return.
That scares the shit out of Jay.
Well, that and men trying to constantly ass fuck him, but I digress.
What sort of person am I, Jay?
Confront me, and you confront yourself.
That's his giveaway.
That, and:
You are not that bright and easily misled.
Don't forget that one, too. Another classic Jay-ism. The mantra to end all discussion.
That scares the shit out of Jay.
Well, that and men trying to constantly ass fuck him...
No doubt.
Jay needs to build a chastity belt for his ass.
Back to the topic, it's not a violation of free speech for a corporation to decide it doesn't want to promote a product. In fact, one can say that decision is an act of free speech - the free speech of a corporation (sorry, opponents of Citizens United, corporations do have speech rights, and the Supreme Court got that right) to determine what kind of content it wants to promote. If consumers decide to stop purchasing Apple's products because of this, that's their free speech too. But it isn't censorship or oppression on the part of Apple.
And by the way, what are these "free speech values" that extend beyond what relates to state action and what is enforceable in court? Please define. Sounds like an assertion, not an argument.
Not that I disagree all that much with somefeller, but since when did purchasing decisions become a form of speech? I mean, I'm aware of veiled bribes, where someone flashes you an amount of money and then implies that you have to do something they want in exchange for receiving it, but that's a very limited form of speech. Surely The Song of Songs or works of Shakespeare couldn't be translated into twenty dollar bills and 5 cent coins, but maybe I'm missing something here that all the amoral whores understand a lot better than I do...
since when did purchasing decisions become a form of speech?
Well, decisions not to purchase in for form of boycotts are certainly speech, or at the very least expression (which is a concept tied with speech). And regarding the positive act of purchasing as a type of speech/expression - commodify your dissent.
Do you recognize such things as those that have non-financial value?
Surely a company will see declining or rising financial value in a product they sell as a form of communication. But that's because the latter (communication) encompasses the latter (expressions of financial value and changes therein). The former is much broader than the latter.
I guess I just never realized when the move to equate money = every form of human exchange became complete. At the least, there seems to be some sort of push to view things that way, to view every form of human exchange as a commodity.
I think it's whorish and shallow but hey, maybe that's just me.
Do you recognize such things as those that have non-financial value?
Yes, I do. However, financial activity can be a kind of speech, such as in the example of a boycott. But looking at purchasing commodities as a type of expression or vice-versa also raises other critiques, which is why I included the link above.
The big secret about the cause of homosexuality is that it is caused by a hormonal imbalance in the mother during pregnancy. This is why there is a connection to genetics, the mother may be genetically predisposed to hormonal imbalance.
I am not sure why this is such a big secret. Maybe gays don't want a prevention to be found or don't want to be thought of as having a birth defect. The thing about birth defects is that there is no cure as such.
As for Apple, I'm not really sure how they have dodged anti-trust problems with their closed systems all these years, but they are big enough now that it could become a problem. Sooooo, who is in power at the Justice Department again?
Not that I disagree all that much with somefeller, but since when did purchasing decisions become a form of speech?
Since someone figured out to monetize the printing press (see: centuries ago).
And to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds: I don't want to hear another goddamn word about Walmart banning certain CDs it deems objectionable.
Yes, this. Exactly.
Also, to describe Apple as "closed source" as if it's a standalone devil, while so much of Windows world has been anti-open source and anti open-source standards from the very beginning and to this very day, is...
... myopic, at best, not to mention astigmatic.
and unhealthy ([g]ays have higher incidences of STD’s, HIV, eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide than heterosexuals).
True, in the aggregate, less true (or even more true, in particular cases!) when one looks at subsections. It's more useful to look at the subsections before making judgments, much less decisions, much less policy, based on generalizations which *require* dependency on "in the aggregate" and thus are not so interested in more meaningful information.
---
By the way: Are there still people out there who think that that godless heathen teens have had abortions at higher rates, *over time*, than fundamentalist ones?
Jeez, people.
Betcha you wouldn't believe, either, the rate among educated, higher-incomed women who are *at least* 3rd-generation educated about personal-sexuality responsibility, and, God knows, birth control in all its availabilities.
It's to weep, the embrace of sweeping generalizations to the enablement and enrichment of profligate subsections (which one side or another wants to live under a rug somewhere, so as to forestall questions).
Isn't it?
since when did purchasing decisions become a form of speech?
Since the Supreme Court expanded "speech" to include "expression".
I see no particular reason that a company can't have a "don't be a giant douchebag on our turf" policy - and I'm not at all sure that such a policy is not "good policy and good values".
Free speech? Write a web version - and then everyone can see it, and not just on iOS products!
Nobody has a god-damn right to App Store presence, and I do not remotely buy the argument that Apple's done anything "wrong" here.
(Nor would I buy the argument if it was Amazon on their Android Store, for the exact same reasons.)
Yes, it opens up a "who to listen to" can of worms - but I don't see the comparison between App A that says "Gayness is Wrong" and App B that provides Gay Dating Services, even if both "offend some group".
The former is "being a giant douchebag", as I said, but the latter, despite offending people, isn't.
(Or, to put it another way, if we compare notional "messages", there's a useful difference between "A Sucks!" and "B Rocks!", even if A and B are somewhat opposed, and each one will "offend" some of the opposing crown.
Think of the Political version - is "Republicans Are WMD's!" the same as "Progressive Politics Is Awesome!"?
I don't think so - because the distinction I'm trying to make is one of politeness, more or less.
Cheering your side is not as, well, giant-douchey as cursing the other.)
As a speech gatekeeper
Spoken as a not-speech-gatekeeper I assume. Keep on boneheading!
Ridiculous. Apple is a private company, not a government entity so this does not have a thing to do with free speech. Secondly, Apple has a responsibility to push ACCURATE information. And the ex-gay methodology has been proven as junk science.
Since someone figured out to monetize the printing press (see: centuries ago).
See: backwards reasoning. (Monetizing the printing press turns communication into a purchasing decision, not the other way around).
But nice try, retro-person.
Do you think that Apple should also allow apps that promote Nazism or Satanism or pedophilia?
Just curious as to where the line is drawn? Is Apple supposed to allow ALL viewpoints or all viewpoints that don't really bother you too much?
Post a Comment