@Lando

Let's be real clear. Homosexuality is harmless, but it most certainly is *not* normal.

Remember that our rights only exist so long as they do not trample on the rights of others. Anti-semitic, racists, homophobic, or other forms of hate speech trample the rights of those trying to live free and pursue their dreams and, as such, do not earn the protections of the 1st amendment and censoring them is actually *for* the public good.

Quite frankly, although I do think it's awful and that people should avoid it, I do believe that no matter what people should have the right to say in public what they want. I think that if we start to infringe on that things begin to get very messy. Like I said, I don't think that hate speech is good, but I think that to have it legally outlawed would be very very bad.

@jman

So, can I yell, "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Is that free speech?

Oh I didn't see your last post Draug sorry. That is an incredibly good point and I think that if a people group were being overwhelmingly criticized then some form of action might need to be taken. However, generally nothing of that scale occurs and in America (atleast from what I've seen of it living in the north east) we are comparatively tolerant of all people groups and even those who aren't don't take any significant action. So I guess I would simply define hate-speech differently.

Yes Abge you obviously could. Granted though it wouldn't be a very smart thing to do and alot of people would be pissed at you, but you could. It just wouldn't be smart or responsible and might count as disturbing the peace, but I'm not a lawyer.

@jman - it is outlawed at the federal level. There is no "to have it legally outlawed". You cannot say certain things in public or you will be prosecuted and go to a federal penitentary if found guilty.

@jman - go to the south or even the midwest and the KKK rallies. Seriously, dude, the Pacific NW is much more tolerant than places like Cincinnati, once voted most intolerant city in the US.

@jman - yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater is a crime, and not just distrubing the peace. so is discussing explosives and bombs on an airliner. these are crimes that get you put away for a very long time. They are not protected speech nor should they be. Again, the right to free speech goes only so far as it does not infringe upon others rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The founders intended this to prevent government from stopping free political speech, not any and all speech regardless of the damage it might do to others.

I'm in the North East (New England), not the NW, but yeah either way the northern coasts are definitely more accepting. You're right though, seeing as I don't live in an area where any really strong racism or bigorty exists I just don't see why hate speech is a problem. For the places that you're talking about though I can definitely see its value.

Sorry, thought you said NW. But yeah, and I hate to politicize this, but the red states versus the blue states makes all the difference when it comes to hate speech. Unfortunately, a lot of conservative states include those who think they are better than others based on cosmetic or personal differences and don't see that a person is a person regardless of their chosen religion, political view, sexual orientation, skin color, gender, or racial background.

@ Jman - You said "It's just a difference in core morality. Would you agree?" I both agree and disagree. Yes it is just a difference in core morality. But to just say "It's a difference in morality, nothing else to it." is to oversimplify the issue. Personal religious beliefs aside, a morality based on tolerance is simply more useful in, and better adapted to our modern world than an overly religious one.
It's not just a matter of Apple having the right to censor what goes in their app store. They have a DUTY to. They have to do what's best for their shareholders, and I suppose they felt that the possibility of angering the LGBT and Allies demographic was a bigger risk than angering the anti-LGBT demographic, and are required, for the good of their shareholders, to act accordingly.
And for the record this "compassionate" (in MASSIVE sarcasm quotes) passage of the Manhattan Declaration is incredibly patronizing and condescending and insulting in every possible way. At least the fire and brimstone types who actively spew violently hateful speech are willing to openly insult us rather than bother us with this veiled "compassion" crap.

And this is coming from a guy generally viewed as an asshole around here... :-)

My statements, not mafias. Bad timing on that posting.

Yeah, you're right Mafia I guess it was a bit oversimplified, but I think that that is a very big part of it. And you might have a point about the tolerance thing, I haven't thought about it much though. Just from a glance though the idea makes sense. And yes, in that sense, if this app would have damaged their sales or reputation in any way they would have had a duty to their shareholders to remove it. I'm just not sure that it was really having an effect either way though--heck, I didn't even know it was there until I read this article on it. haha You know?

I was worried for a second there. Although to be honest I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out people viewed me as an asshole.

And also Draugner I would agree that the blue states tend to be quite a bit less bigoted. At the same time, I wouldn't generalize and say that every single person in a red state is a racist, just that there's a higher probability of finding them there than in blue ones. All in all it's very sad that this is the way it is, but it is and so we've got to deal with it.

Nah. I like you Mafia. I'd never let you take a hit for my personality. Hell, I wouldn't do that to people I don't like. I take my own hits where they happen.

I agree jman. I grew up in Ohio and live in Northern Kentucky. They are both very much red states. Yet, I'm no discriminator of persons. I judge everyone based on their own words and actions.

Oh for sure, jman. It wouldn't really make a huge difference. I think it was more a calculated move to make it look like they're taking a stand on principle. If they make a habit of removing EVERY app that seems homophobic, no matter how obscure or relatively harmless then they've gone a long way to improving their image in the eyes of generally well educated, urban and suburban, 20-30 year old people. A demographic which is both generally supportive of the gay community (and also descriptive of a large portion of that community as well) and also happens to be a huge portion of Apple's customer base.

Yeah, I'm sure it was on Apple's part. Everyone wants to look as good as possible with as little effort as possible. haha And yeah Draugner you're a perfect example. haha

w/e

but seriously i'm pretty much indifferent. the one part i found offensive is the bit about "and other forms of immoral conduct" lol they let their guard down for a moment there... then they went back to talking all about human dignity and such.

so yeah it was a bit... in need of revision. would i have pulled that shit if i was apple? nah.... but.... i can see why they did especially since a bunch of people asked them too, and especially since they know that their biggest fan base also happens to be liberals, who happen to kind of hate fundies. lol. so yeah i see why they did it.

bob, your shit about free expression is interesting, and about companies being chartered for the public good. is there a law like that on the books somehwere? come back and tell me.

jman et al... i havent read any of your posts about homosexuality in general, but my opinion in brief is that it's not wrong because it doesn't hurt anyone. so comparing it to other shit like stealing is totally off base.

there are two kinds of "sins" -- the kinds that hurt other people, and the kinds that don't. the kinds that don't are premarital sex, gay sex, and all that other stuff that makes the church look increasingly like an anachronism.

side note: if it would seriously hurt your parents or someone else for you to announce that you are gay or that you are boning your gf, then that is another matter. btw. but that's a WHOLE nother discussion, aint it.


if youll excuse me its finals week

side note about the side note: this is why i personally disagree with blasphemy but only if it is in front of believers. that is "wrong" in the sense that you are being insensitive to their sensibilities.

but if you are with a bunch of atheists and you make some crass joke about the crucifixion or whatever, then whatever.

but yeah thats totally a side note im outta here now

hahahah oh god how many times am I going to have to explain those comments?

I was only using that example to prove that there was a difference in core moralities between Lando and whoever wrote it. I think there's a more in depth explanation on another page that you can go read if you want.

like i said i didnt read those posts, so i wasnt referring to anything you said. i was just mentioning my own thoughts

Hi, interesting and surprisingly polite conversation.
1. Homosexuality IS normal abgemacht, in the exact same sense that redheads (1-2% of population) are normal, except that homos (2-13% depending on the study) are probably more common (20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings).
2.I agree with Abge and Draug that Apple maintains complete control of their site. That said, I totally agree with Bob that perhaps we are to restrictive in our thinking about what is public, not in the sense that you can oblige Apple in a court, but in the sense that there are ways of addressing apple to induce a more open and transparent system. Stop me if this starts to sound familiar...
3. THAT said, I think it's probably a good idea for Apple to remove that kind of garbage (as per Draug's analysis of hate speech). Suicide among gays is at epidemic levels. The dissemination of hate speech towards gays (even when it's this lite) should not be condoned by gov or companies (see below).
4. I like the Mafia analysis and agree that this is probably a business decision for Apple. Apple isn't Google after all (as someone else pointed out.) Which makes me think most corporations should be treated as children: applaud them when they behave well (regardless of their motivation for good behaviour) but spank them in the wallet when they behave badly. Voila, they'll be salivating every time they hear the bell.

@mcbry

I don't think you understand what the word "normal" means.

See, I think I do know what normal means. Here are some excerpts from the dictionary:
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
free from any mental disorder; sane.
of natural occurrence.

But enlighten me abge. Maybe you have a special secret meaning I don't know about?