On the Manhattan Declaration and Apple's curation of the App Store
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple removed the "Manhattan Declaration" app from the App Store this week. The app, which espoused anti-gay and anti-abortion views, was originally released by a religious group founded by Chuck Colson.
The app's ejection from the store has raised the ire of some who now decry Apple for not supporting free speech and/or being anti-Christian. Let's see if we can separate the light from the heat on this issue.
First of all, stories about App Store rejections have been a staple since the dawn of the App Store. Then came stories of apps that were accepted and subsequently removed. The most infamous instances of yo-yoing in and out of the store were the Google Voice apps, which have since been restored after over a year's absence, but that is a rare case. Most times, when an app is removed, it is gone forever. Some great apps have been yanked, including MiTube, Camera+, iDOS and many more.
On the inappropriate content front, Apple also removed a "Baby Shaker" application and a huge number of apps that were deemed "too sexy" for the App Store. Of course, porn apps have been banned since the App Store was announced.
More recently, Apple published a set of App Store Guidelines, where the company has gone out of its way to make sure that people with religious beliefs are not targeted by malicious or hatemongering app developers. The document, which reads as if it might have been penned by Steve Jobs himself, includes this paragraph:
We view Apps different than books or songs, which we do not curate. If you want to criticize a religion, write a book. If you want to describe sex, write a book or a song, or create a medical app. It can get complicated, but we have decided to not allow certain kinds of content in the App Store.
Apple has made it clear from day one that the App Store is "curated" according to its standards, and included in those standards is a clear message that attacking religion is off-limits. The document goes on to add in section 14.1 that "Any app that is defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited, or likely to place the targeted individual or group in harms way [sic] will be rejected." That language is repeated in section 19.1, which states "Apps containing references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence will be rejected."
Some of these terms are clearly subjective: what offends me may not offend you and vice versa. Who is the final arbiter? Clearly, as far as the App store is concerned, Apple is. As a non-governmental entity, Apple is within its rights to exercise whatever restraints on its platform it chooses to implement -- the First Amendment applies to laws abridging the freedom of the press, not the actions or decisions of those who own the presses.
Section 19.2 adds "Apps may contain or quote religious text provided the quotes or translations are accurate and not misleading. Commentary should be educational or informative rather than inflammatory."
Again, Apple has built-in protections for religious beliefs. There are a great number of applications available for people of religious faith (and, it should be noted, also apps for atheists), which severely undercuts any charge that Apple is "anti-religion" or "anti-Christian."
What Apple has not allowed are apps where "Group A" attacks "Group B." The App Store Guidelines make it clear that Apple will not accept apps that attack religion, and Apple's recent action makes it clear that Apple will also reject -- if not initially, then upon further review -- apps where religious people attack others.
Those who want to accuse Apple of "censorship" should be asked if they would be willing to support the other apps that Apple has rejected or removed, including the porn apps. The App Store is not a free-for-all, and it is not a democracy. It never claimed to be. Apple has made its intent to "censor" the App Store clear from the beginning. People of religious faith have benefited from Apple's policies, not to mention being free of the worry that Little Johnny is going to download a Hustler app on that new iPod touch his grandparents gave him for Christmas (although, without parental controls in Safari, Johnny might well surf over to the site). If consumers don't want that, they have plenty of other mobile device choices with free-for-all application ecosystems.
At the end of the day, having the app removed may be a disguised boon for the sponsors, versus having it sitting quietly on the store. Many observers have noticed that app developers get a lot of free publicity when websites write about their run-ins with Apple's review board. The same will be true for the Manhattan Declaration, which has gotten a lot of free press from articles like the one you are reading now.
"If you want to criticize a religion, write a book," says Apple in the App Store Guidelines. Perhaps the guidelines could have also said "If you want to criticize others based on your religion, write a book." Or you can create a website, which you are free to view via Safari on iOS devices if you so choose.
[Speaking of curation, some comments that were devolving into personal attacks have been removed; you may see stray replies to comments that are no longer in the thread. –Ed.]
Share
After receiving thousands of complaints, Apple removed the "Manhattan Declaration" app from the App Store this week. The app, which...
Add a Comment
Sure, and the KKK isn't racist, it's just that God wants white people to be in charge. Slavery was part of the Biblical order too, as part of the Curse of Ham.
Interracial marriage was going to tear apart the fabric of society… etc.
Remember when women's rights were going to ruin the country too?
Your right to free speech doesn't extend to the App Store, as I said in the text of the article that you are replying to, but obviously didn't bother to read.
As the article says, hate groups hate being called hate groups. The Manhattan Declaration covers its hate in carefully crafted verbiage, but it's still there.
Excellent article. Thank you.
You state:
"What Apple has not allowed are apps where "Group A" attacks "Group B." The App Store Guidelines make it clear that Apple will not accept apps that attack religion, and Apple's recent action makes it clear that Apple will also reject -- if not initially, then upon further review -- apps where religious people attack others."
Couple observations:
- How does the Manhattan Declaration "attack" anyone? Has anyone actually read it? It is a very articulate, cogent and civil argument from a classic Christian perspective.
- By removing the App, isn't Apple "attacking" a religion?
- It is sad that we can't have a civil dialogue and the thoughtful exchange of ideas and arguments like those made in the Manhattan Declaration. If it is offensive, then we need to recalibrate our "offense" meter.
Your comment simply rehashes what has been said (and responded to) dozens of times already in the comments that came before it.
Since no one else is adding anything new to the conversation, I will. Here's a link to a recent article from the Christian Century titled "Hate groups hate being called hate groups" about The Southern Poverty Law Center which added several antigay organizations to its list of hate groups, citing their "demonizing propaganda" and "propagation of known falsehoods."
While it does not specifically mention the Manhattan Declaration, it addresses the sentiment that lingers under the surface, despite all protestations to the contrary. In closing, they note:
"The organizations on SPLC's list don't beat up gay kids, but they do spread falsehoods that fertilize seeds of hate and violence. Some of them even do this in the name of Christ."
The full article can be found here:
http://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2010-12/hate-groups-hate-being-called-hate-groups
TJ,
I certainly joined the conversation late and was hasty to add my comments before reading the entire thread. After doing so, I realized that I wasn't adding anything new to the conversation, so I apologize for that.
I read the article above and must say that I get tired of all the squabbling over language. "Word-bombs" is a great term. People drop them these days to incite emotions instead of using language to build cogent arguments. Sadly, that's how one garners support for ones cause these days. Many are unable or unwilling to think through anything, and instead are swayed by soundbite sophism. And so we lob word-bombs. Your article at least laid out some good information and made a case for why Apple did what they did, and I appreciate that.
Some thoughts to emphasize:
- Christianity is more radical than most realize, and many Christian organizations misrepresent the Christian faith.
Christians need to stop exclusively and publicly lambasting homosexuality alone while giving little attention (publicly) to almost every other category of rampant sexual sin, such as all forms extramarital heterosexual activity, adultery, masturbation, pornography use, sexualization of children and teens, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc. Christians can be a bit hypocritical in this regard, at least publicly. True Christian doctrine on sexuality teaches that the divine design for sexual expression is exclusively within the context of a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman who are covenantally and legally committed to one another, before God and society, for life (i.e. married). The married man and woman are united body, mind and soul, and the physical union is to mutually express affection, tightly bond the two emotionally and spiritually, and create offspring to raise to be responsible citizens. I repeat: From a Christian view, sex is reserved for this type of relationship alone. That has always been a pretty extreme stance, from the dawn of history until now.
I would like to point out the Manhattan Declaration is not guilty of this type of hypocrisy. It's worth reading again, if you haven't recently.
- Christianity is misunderstood.
Any Christian who thinks they are better than anyone else needs a swift knock on the head. The whole premise of Christianity is that we are ALL guilty of sin, and that NONE of us can possibly earn God's favor by being "a good person." That's why God the Son (Jesus) came to earth: To live a sinless life for us (because we can't), then willingly give His own life to make vicarious atonement for the sin of all those who repent in faith in Him. When one is united to Christ by faith, it radically changes that person.
I can testify to this personally. I was an absolute slave of sexual sin in many forms until I almost lost my wife and children and life. God allowed me to hit rock bottom, then changed my heart. I am truly a new creation. I've been set free of that bondage and it is wonderful. But I can now honestly say (with a clear conscience and no hatred for anybody) that I hate sexual sin of every form. I hate how it enslaves souls, I hate how it kills relationships, I hate how it hurts children, I hate how it defiles pure hearts, I hate how it degrades women, I hate how it perverts something beautiful and wonderful, I hate how it demolishes families, I hate how it cheapens love, I hate how it eats at society like cancer...
- But that doesn't mean I (or Christians) hate people.
After all, we are all guilty. When I or any Christian speak out against homosexuality, or rape, or adultery, or abortion (or dishonestly, or oppression, or stealing, etc.), we are, or should be, doing it from a profound and loving concern for the good of others and society. If my kids are doing something that I believe is dangerous or wrong or unhealthy (like playing in the road, being promiscuous, eating too much fat) I warn them about it and sometimes even forbid them from engaging in that behavior. I do it because I LOVE them, not because I hate them.
Why don't people get that? (Probably in part because of the tone and posture of many so called "Christians".)
The fight against homosexual "marriage" isn't so much about behavior as it is about what is normative regarding marriage and family and society. Christians honestly believe that the divine design for sexuality, as reveal in scripture, is what's best. Individuals stray from that norm to their personal harm, and a society willfully subverts that norm will ultimately pay a steep price at many levels (socially, spiritually, etc).
Speaking out specifically against homosexuality is not hate, it is, even when done imperfectly, a manifestation of Christian love for people and concern for society.
Speaking out specifical
@ T R Post: you're ignorance of civil law and human nature are simply stunning. That about sums it up.
December 03 2010 at 12:28 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply@ Gordon: A. Please spell my name correctly. B. I never even suggested
that I read the MD; I have lots better to do with my time and am
familiar with every argument under the sun on the subject of same-sex
marriage. C. Please answer my request for a rational argument against
same-sex civil marriage, (which was based, in part, on your quote of
the MD: "to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no
less than we, regard as wayward"); I'm positive you can't.
My marriage to my husband (in Canada) was no more a yielding to desire
than anyone else's marriage. Jeez, by that quote alone I can see that the MD is full of arrogance and presumption regarding other people's lives!
And as for "what it says in the Bible"—you can stuff that since the
Bible, even in one translation, will contradict itself hundreds of
times (http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf)
And yes, that should be "your" not "you're". (And that was fast typing, not ignorance of grammar, so I'm only slightly embarrassed.)
December 03 2010 at 12:52 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI will never understand why America has such deep, fundamental cultural divisions along religious lines.
The rest of the secular western world of looks on, slightly embarrassed for you all.
Now *this* ... is an attack.
December 07 2010 at 4:44 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyIt must be nice holding the position of Supreme Voice for the whole world. Is that an elected position. Do you get paid for it
In the future please speak only for yourself and your opinions, and stop with the erroneous statements of how WE feel and think
i think a lot of people are misusing/misunderstanding attack. i think the proper word that should be used by a lot of people on here is "insult." calling any belief or lifestyle "immoral" is an insult. now whether or not you want to call an insult an attack is another topic, but there is no doubt it my mind from reading these quotes from the manhattan document, that it is insulting gay people and pro choice people. they are simply white washing it by putting it in nice words, but the underlying meaning is still there: you do not share the same views as us, you are not a moral person. how that could not be seen as an insult is beyond me.
December 03 2010 at 2:26 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHow about the facts?
The Manhattan Declaration:
- contains no objectionable material
- does not contain any hateful statements
- does not attack any group of people
- does not criticize any religion.
What it does is state support for human life, traditional marriage, and religious freedom.
It appears to me that T. J. Luoma did not even read the Manhattan Declaration before he wrote an article about it!!!!!
@wygit - I understand that a lot of people have trouble with understanding the old testament. There are four things you should know first. One, the time and culture when this was written was very, very different. I would assume that you have done little study into these ancient times, right? Second, there is a new testament for a reason. You selectively pick out parts of the beginning of a story without the end because that just goes bad for you. Third, these laws were created by God to protect the people, not rob them of joy. For instance, let’s say you have a son that wants to play in the streets. You, being a responsible parent, say "No" because it dangerous. To the child they see it as you robbing them of joy. If only he could understand that you are not trying to take his joy but to give him more by protecting him from getting seriously wounded or killed. Lastly, everyone knows taking things out of context can drastically change the meaning. Many verses lose their meaning when read in isolation.
I would encourage you to understand what the real meaning of these scriptures that you've posted. The selling your daughter was actually to prevent abuse. You see, if the family was so poor that they couldn't pay a dowry then the young girl would likely never marry. This would equate to the woman either staying with her family or seeking prostitution. On the other hand, she could actually become a servant for these richer families in which she would most likely not abused, etc. Do some research about slavery in this time period and how the Bible talks about it.
As for the Sabbath, many times Jesus tells the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:23ff). As for the pigs (Rom 14, Acts 10:9ff). For the burning his mother…I don’t know where that is from. All of these examples go back to the idea that Jesus set us free from the law that Sheen is quoting. Again, these were to protect people, not rob their joy as you seem to interpret. I eat pork, but do you know what you can get from pigs!?!?! Look up Trichinosis or taenia solium. You’re seeing things from only half of the story when you base everything off the Old Testament only.
But what about Krishna? And Bhuddah? And Thor? Which supernatural being is the bestest?
December 03 2010 at 2:39 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyHey, while you're all here, did you hear about changing the gender input in Diaspora from a drop-down to a textbox?
Squirrel!
Wow Siteink you're also a moron . . . and I'm pretty certain you were born that way.
December 02 2010 at 7:46 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyDeals of the Day
more deals- Apple iPod nano Multi-Touch 8GB MP3 Player for $100 + $8 s&h
- Cases for New iPad at HandHeldItems: Extra 20% off, $2 credit, from $3 + $3 s&h
- $15 Apple iTunes Gift Card for $8 for new Saveology customers
- Retro 80's Case for iPhone for $11 + $2 s&h
- HHI 360 Dual-View Stand Case for new iPad w/ $2 credit for $12 + $3 s&h
- HHI ReElegant Smart Cover Companion Case for new iPad from $5 + $3 s&h
Software Updates
more updatesFeatured Stories
more stories
Popular Stories
TUAW (or The Unofficial Apple Weblog) is a website devoted to tips, reviews, news, analysis and opinion on everything Apple.
112 Comments