Pending LGBT Boycott Of Apple?
Recent confusion regarding where social apps for gay men stand and approval of apps promoting anti-LGBT politics is prompting some debate about whether we should consider putting our iPhones and MacBooks away for the cause.
In late October, the application "gay men's social network: Jack'd" was removed from the App Store, allegedly due to sexually explicit images. The app's developer also revealed that he was previously warned by Apple's automated submission system that the app may be rejected for it's use of the word "gay".
The "Manhattan Declaration" made its way to the App Store, allowing people to declare their opposition to LGBT people's "right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law". A Change.org petition has since been posted by LGBT activist (and outing extraordinaire) Michael Rogers demanding that Apple remove the app. Reports are now coming out that the app has disappeared - although no confirmation from Apple or the developer, yet.
Exodus International, the leading "ex-gay" organization (HA!), has also announced its intention of targeting victims as young as 10 with new outreach strategies. Among the use of podcasts and YouTube, the group is also developing an iPhone app.
Recent boycotts of other companies for financially supporting politicians who support anti-LGBT stances seem to be getting Tweeters and followers of activist bloggers (in comments and forum discussions) in the boycotting mood. While the immediate demand would presumably be the removal of the offending apps, it's not exactly clear what the ultimate end-goal for any proposed boycott would be. However, the lack of a stated end-goal didn't prevent the other boycotts from proceeding.
If the ultimate hope is that Apple will censor content that LGBT consumers find objectionable - then the company may find itself revisiting the App Store submission guidelines. Apple has been struggling with the issue of censorship for over a couple of years now. However, this call for more censorship seems to be in conflict with previous demands by progressive consumers.
While Apple has been known for supporting LGBT issues, such as its public opposition to Prop 8, they have not censored anti-LGBT content from podcasts or ebook submissions. Since this issue has gained momentum, Apple's offices have been closed for the Turkey Day festivities. So it's unclear what official response, if any, the company may have. It's also not clear if the removal of the "Manhattan Declaration" app is for good. However, we may have more clarity from the company as early as Monday.
So what do you think? Should Apple censor anti-LGBT content from the App Store? Would that set the foundation for future LGBT supported Apps which target anti-LGBT polices from also being censored? Where do you think Apple should draw the line?
aequalitas
Posted to Hot Stuff, In Your Pocket, In the News on 27 November 2010
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: app store, apple, apps, boycott, change.org, consumers, exodus international, ios, manhattan declaration, michael rogers
3D iPhone glasses. Why?
You have provided no evidence whatsoever, apart from an unattributed, if juicy, headline, that anyone at all is considering a “boycott of Apple.”
I think this is slightly missing the point.
It's about consistency. Apple is banning explicitly gay apps, and putting restrictions on the ones it does allow.
Yet anti-LGBT apps are to be green-lighted with no question?
It makes me suspicious of Apple's supposed support of LGBT people. There is a difference between explicit same-sex content and giving voice to hate speech.
I doubt there are such tight restrictions on hetero dating apps, and I also doubt that something like that petition app but for our side would be tolerated.
As with the greater issue of LGBT rights, I just want equality.
If bigots must be allowed to express themselves with iOS apps, we should be free and welcome to do the same.
If same-sex dating/meeting apps are to be heavily restricted and flanderized, then that should go for heterosexual-aimed apps as well.
It's like that issue with that comic version of The Importance of Being Earnest, when a similarly adult hetero ebook wasn't censored.
They're still treating LGBTs like we're inherently MA/R/NC-17, and that is part of and/or a result of the social forces that marginalize us.
It's no different from people hiding even the existence of homosexuality from children, as if it can't be explained in PG terms.
Like the episode of PBS' "Postcards from Buster" that shot a visit to the home of a lesbian couple and their children.
That was a wonderful opportunity to show that LGBT families are just like straight ones. But many PBS affiliates refused to even air it.
Now, what would have been filmed by a show on PBS Kids that wasn't appropriate to show actual children?
The problem is that people aren't thinking about us in PG terms. They are still thinking, "eew, buttsex", and "God doesn't like it", and running with that.
In my mind, it all goes together, and if Apple is being part of that prejudicial hypocrisy, then we should boycott it.
I say that as an iPod touch owner with a Mac user boyfriend. Heck, when I was a little gay child (which apparently don't exist or something) in public school, we used Apple IIs in the classroom. So in a sense, Apple was my first real computer.
And now here we are.
Joe - thank you for pointing that out. I did fail to elaborate (beyond mentioning Tweets and blogs) where the conversations of a boycott were taking place.
I first heard about this whole thing on a listserv for LGBT bloggers and activists. This was one of the list were discussion of a Target boycott was debated before any official announcements were made. Until any organization or group of some type decides to take action - there isn't any boycott (at least not that I'm personally aware of). However, the chatter on listservs, Tweets and blogs was enough to prompt me to use that headline.
Regardless of if you agree or disagree with the notion, I do think it's important that people discuss and react to the idea before anything "officially" happens as the time for debate is then over. My aim was to share that this is being discussed by a number of, what I consider credible, people and share why it's being discussed - at least as well as I can without losing people's interest.
In any case - in the future I'll make a better effort at being clear about where these conversations are occurring so you have the chance to decide for yourself how legitimate they are.
Thank you for sharing these points and bits of information - I appreciate it. :)
To be honest this article started out about three times longer than the final version. There were some points I opted not to expand on and in general I decided not to share my own personal opinion. I made those decisions to try and keep it short enough that people would read and unbiased enough that folks could make their own conclusions (and then debate them if they so desire).
But ultimately you all are the audience - so (within reason) I'm open to suggestions on how the blog can better serve you. :)