Skip to content

Comment on Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

Comments

And in other news, Apple have removed the "Gay Cure" app from their app store.

Clearly a stupid, offensive app, but it looks like "icky speech" to me.

And this is exactly why an open device like Android is so much better.

The problem is that what speech is "icky" depends on the person, and if you ban "icky" speech then you'll be banning all sorts of things others do not find icky. Apple has also removed apps that were basically soft-core porn. But for me, a "gay cure" app is far more offensive than a "girls in bikinis" app, but other people clearly feel the exact reverse.

When you reduce the world to speech which no one finds offensive, then you find yourself using Newspeak, in which you can't communicate meaningfully at all because every offensive thought and image has been eliminated.

Actually, that news was what made me think of submitting this in the first place. I was struck by the applause from some people towards Apple for rejecting the app, but I kept thinking that Apple doesn't deserve to be congratulated for the latest rejection any more than for the previous ones. Because really, you'd be praising the very same grip that Apple has over iOS's software ecosystem which in other cases infuriated you. The same process is responsible for outcomes you like, and outcomes you don't. The question remains: what do we actually think of the process, and what do we do about it?

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.