Following iPhone’s Example Windows Phone 7 to Ban Porn Apps

Life Site News ^ | Wednesday June 9, 2010 | Thaddeus M. Baklinski

[GonzoII]

Wednesday June 9, 2010

---

Following iPhone’s Example Windows Phone 7 to Ban Porn Apps

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

REDMOND, Washington, June 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Following Apple's lead in trying to keep pornography off its iPad and iPhone products, Microsoft has announced a new set of policies for the Windows Phone 7 Marketplace that will not allow porn or sexually suggestive content.

The application certification requirements for Windows Phone 7 program developers states that Microsoft will no longer allow content such as "Images that are sexually suggestive or provocative, Content that generally falls under the category of pornography, or Content that a reasonable person would consider to be adult or borderline adult content."

In February, Apple began blocking "adult" applications and sexually suggestive screen shots from its online stores in response to "numerous complaints from our customers about this type of content."

In May Apple CEO Steve Jobs said his company would not be a party to the pornography industry and hoped that the iPad and iPhone revolution would help create a porn-free world.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy [an] Android phone,” Jobs said, referring to the product of competitor Google, which has permitted a pornography store app for its smartphone.

Contact info for Microsoft:
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399 USA
Phone: 425-882-8080
Fax: 425-706-7329
Email: (through website)

Contact info for Apple
Apple
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-996-1010

See related LSN article:

Steve Jobs Says iPad Revolution Means ‘Freedom from Porn’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051811.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060912.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[GonzoII]

Good for ya!!

[montanajoe]

I’m not into porn but I wont be buying either phone. Don’t know which is worse... a government nanny state or a private business imposing their morals on their potential customers...

[Star Traveler]

Well, it looks like the Android phone is going to be the “porn-meister’s haven” for all things porn .... LOL ...

We know one phone that is not going to be for families and kids ... :-)

[TrueKnightGalahad]

OH NoeS!!! Wherever will I get my porn now?

[freedumb2003]

>>I’m not into porn but I wont be buying either phone. Don’t know which is worse... a government nanny state or a private business imposing their morals on their potential customers...<<

It amazes me how many FReepers support Manny Statism (or Nanny Commercialization), so long as that Nanny supports their viewpoint. To them, the phrase “I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it” is just an empty tagline.

[BunnySlippers]

How about Match.com which had only male and female matchups. Until the gays sued them to have male on male and female on female categories?

The gays won and now Match.com has to do singles match ups for gays!

I’d say keep the government out of it. You can’t have it both ways.

Either you force the Boy Scouts to have gays ... or you let PRVATE ENTERPRISE and the business owner decide.

It’s a no-brainer ... but apparently you can’t decide!

[GonzoII]

"private business imposing their morals on their potential customers..."

Huh?.."Private"..."imposing"...?

[Cold Heat]

Don't need the app. Web sites have their own dowloads for hand helds.

[Cold Heat]

Yeah, that is why I have a Blackberry.

[Persevero]

It is not nanny stateism to decide that your private company doesn’t want to sell porn capability.

That is your decision as a private company to make.

[pnh102]

Don’t know which is worse... a government nanny state or a private business imposing their morals on their potential customers...

How can a private business impose anything? Unlike government no business can force customers to do business with them. If a customer doesn't like a company's policy then said customer can take his business elsewhere.

[montanajoe]

I let the business owner decide for me what is and is not moral? Sorry don't think so..

[goodnesswins]

Gee....I wonder if the Public Libraries will be next.....(LIKE OUR TAX MONEY SHOULD BE FUNDING AVAILABILITY OF PORN IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES!)

[goodnesswins]

Businesses are in business to profit....how they CHOOSE to do that should be THEIR perogative...if PORN is in such demand, some business will provide it....kinda like some businesses provide chicken fried steak, and some do not. You choose where to spend your money.

[kevao]

I let the business owner decide for me what is and is not moral? Sorry don't think so..

Right on. That's the government's job!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Well, it looks like the Android phone is going to be the “porn-meister’s haven” for all things porn .... LOL ...

We know one phone that is not going to be for families and kids ... :-)

There is no one "Android phone". Android is an operating system run by an increasing number of smart phones made by HTC, Motorola, Samsung, LG and others.

Further, the locked down nature of the Apple apps store and now the Microsoft apps store is not to protect families and kids from porn, but to control the native applications run on devices owned by consumers to the benefit of Apple and MS. All iPhones and all phones running MS's new OS will be equally capable of displaying enough web-based hard-core porn to qualify as "porn-meister's havens".

Did you not know this?

[montanajoe]

I wont spend money or support business or government that wants to impose their particular moral agenda. Actually I buy my phones while passing through Hong Kong so it wont affect me personally anyway :)

[montanajoe]

“Right on. That’s the government’s job!”

Of course we all know that...

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Businesses are in business to profit....how they CHOOSE to do that should be THEIR perogative...

You're willing to let businesses which sell you appliances impose arbitrary limits on what you can do with them? So you'd be OK with Fridigaire telling you that you can't store beer in refrigerators you buy from them, OK with SnapOn telling you that you can't use that new screwdriver on anything but a toaster, OK with Sony telling you not to watch anything but NBC on the new TV you just bought?

That's exactly what Apple is trying to do - there isn't the slightest difference. It's amazing how many people in general, and especially here on a conservative forum, are willing to lay back and accept this.

[NYCslicker]

Then don’t buy them. That’s called a marketplace.

[Cold Heat]

Huh?.."Private"..."imposing"...?

This issue keeps coming up decade after decade. The law as codified by SCOTUS is that there is a such thing as legal porn, and it is considered free speech.(Something all Constitution minded people should support.)

It's unfortunate and irritating to those of us with a small "l" Libertine side that many on the right believe it's OK to limit speech when it violates their sensibilities or morality, if their is such a thing. (I only see right, wrong or justified)

Freedoms of speech and association are rights that are only taken away when one does something illegal against society and has forfeited them. But periodically those rights are violated because someone finds them inappropriate for whatever reasons.

Those someones are hypocrites. Plain and simple, IMHO

Or it could be that their thinking cap is askew. I find that people have a moral compass that always points to their own views and not to the Bill of Rights or anyone else. Freedom is not a sometimes thing.

[ByDesign]

Steve really needs to shut up about the whole porn thing - fine, we get it, you don’t want porn in the app store.

And while he’s preaching, he forgets to add that there’s one app on the iPhone that gets you all the porn you want: the Safari web browser.

Gonna block all those porn IPs, Steve-o?

Thought so.

It’s nonsense. He needs to get back to selling computers, not lifestyles. I’m a Mac user, and fan, but I’m getting tired of his preaching.

It’s hilarious, because one of the features of the new iPhone, Video Chat, is going to make sex chat skyrocket again - and paid services are on the way, count on it.

The iPhone has it’s place in porn. Get over it, and concentrate on products.

[cynwoody]

Inability to run an app on a computing platform is a bug, not a feature. The motivation is irrelevant!

[goodnesswins]

OH, puulllleeeaaassseee....don’t buy from THAT company then....sheesh....it’s called the MARKETPLACE! Another company will fill the demand.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Then don’t buy them. That’s called a marketplace.

Yeah, and there's also the option to buy them with the expectation that you can do what you want with them without the manufacturer bothering you. That's called private property.

[D-fendr]

Again, then don’t buy them.

[BunnySlippers]

Okay, so let the government decide.

What if you opened up a book shop. Then some patron did not like that you did not carry porn books. They sue and win. Now you have to carry porn books.

I thought when I opened a business that I got to decide what to sell. Some other vendor will decide to sell the porn to you. If it’s popular then their business excels.

But you are no Conservative if you want the government to come in to telol your hamburger stand to sell diet organic food. And tell your smoke shop to sell electronic stop-smoking aids.

But when I put up my good money, no one is going to tell me I have to sell condoms or health food if I don’t want to sell it.

And you can tell that to the Founding Fathers.

[NYCslicker]

You can have whatever expectation you want, it doesn’t make a reality. It’s just an emotion-based impulse similar to an expectation of free health care made magically cost-free by the government.

I have an expectation of a gold-plated toilet.

Any day now.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

There is no one "Android phone". Android is an operating system run by an increasing number of smart phones made by HTC, Motorola, Samsung, LG and others.

People talk about them in one general class of phones ... :-) ... and they are also included as a group in graphs when they show their market share, too ... so that's not unusual. You'll see them included as a "group" in pie graphs, many times ...

---

Further, the locked down nature of the Apple apps store and now the Microsoft apps store is not to protect families and kids from porn, but to control the native applications run on devices owned by consumers to the benefit of Apple and MS.

It's a "business decision" in order to accommodate the customer base who does not want to see that for families and kids. Companies can either accommodate their customer base and do well in sales -- or -- they can alienate their customer base, in their desired values and lose sales.

At least Apple knows how to make smart business decisions in respect to their customer base ... LOL ...

---

All iPhones and all phones running MS's new OS will be equally capable of displaying enough web-based hard-core porn to qualify as "porn-meister's havens".

With Apple families can "lock down" the browsers and use that ability to prevent their families from getting exposed to that.

On the other hand, not only are the Android phones going to accommodate the "porn meisters" and alienate the families who don't want to have that exposure -- but the Android phones will also have that wonderful capability of accessing all they want on the Internet, too ... LOL ...

It's a wonderful haven for the "porn-meisters" of the world, for sure ... :-)

[AnotherUnixGeek]

OH, puulllleeeaaassseee....don’t buy from THAT company then....sheesh....it’s called the MARKETPLACE!

Yeah, yeah, we all know about the option not to buy. The mystery, though, is why people on a conservative forum are so willing to let other people tell them what they can do with their own property.

[goodnesswins]

Uh...it’s not YOUR property if you don’t buy it because you can’t use it the way you want to....kinda like a car with options.....does every car HAVE to have 4 wheel drive, just because THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT????

[AnotherUnixGeek]

You can have whatever expectation you want, it doesn’t make a reality. It’s just an emotion-based impulse similar to an expectation of free health care made magically cost-free by the government.

LOL - nope, not at all. One is the expectation of getting something for nothing, the other is the expectation of being able to use your own personal property as you see fit without interference from those who have no claim on it. Property rights are not "emotion-based impulses".

[NYCslicker]

No actually the mystery is how you don’t see that “telling people what to do with their own property” includes telling companies how to manufacture a product, because that product is “their own property” before they sell it to you and it becomes your “own property.”

It’s the equivalent of saying, “I want all the freedom in the world for private property rights. But not the private property rights of others. Just my private property rights. Oh no, you gotta do what I say with your stuff, but I get private property rights for my stuff.”

Kind of a silly position to take.

[NYCslicker]

You can use it how you want. The property just doesn’t do what you want it to do. Kind of like buying a fishing rod to go deer hunting and then complaining that its not a deer rifle. You can try to use it to hunt deer. No one is stopping you. It’s just kind of dumb.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Uh...it’s not YOUR property if you don’t buy it because you can’t use it the way you want to....kinda like a car with options.....does every car HAVE to have 4 wheel drive, just because THAT’S WHAT YOU WANT????

Bad analogy - there is no extra capability needed in an iPad or iPhone to run apps not approved by Apple. The correct analogy is a car which you purchase but are only permitted to drive on toll roads which pay the manufacturer.

[montanajoe]

What it comes down to is this. If a business owner says you must share my moral views in order to consume my hamburger or buy my iphone or what ever I will go somewhere else.

I cant make the distinction that private business imposing their moral view is good and government imposing their moral view is bad.

[NYCslicker]

Actually a correct analogy would be a car that the manufacturer designed only to drive on toll roads. And, when you purchased it, you knew this. Then you purchased the car. Then you complained that it did exactly what the manufacturer intended.

[NYCslicker]

The point is you have the choice to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to make the purchase and share the moral views. Just don’t make the purchase.

[NYCslicker]

“Property rights are not “emotion-based impulses”.”

That’s true.

It’s your position that is an emotion-based impulse, not property rights.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

It’s the equivalent of saying, “I want all the freedom in the world for private property rights. But not the private property rights of others. Just my private property rights. Oh no, you gotta do what I say with your stuff, but I get private property rights for my stuff.”

This is nonsense. Apple can do whatever they please with an iPad or iPhone which they haven't sold you. Once they've sold it to you, their rights to control or regulate how you use the device are ended. And yet they continue to control and regulate the device, to their monetary benefit. It's obviously legal, but it's bizarre that people would accept it and even like it.

[dayglored]

> a private business [Apple} imposing their morals on their potential customers

That's a laughably silly statement.

Apple no more "imposes" their morals on you by refusing porn on their products, than Hustler magazine "imposes" their morals on you by offering porn on their products.

You don't have to buy either one.

Get a grip, you are confused.

[montanajoe]

The point is far to many people in government and business think they have the right to make moral decisions.

As I say I wont do business with them but I find it simply amazing how many folks think it acceptable to impose their moral compass on others

[VideoDoctor]

“Over my cold dead porn app”

[Callisto32]

You don’t understand the difference between not allowing porn and a porn app. Apple is not banning porn, you can still go to a porn website or live video chat or wherever the hell you want for your needs. It is only not allowing porn apps, say xxxxhotwomen, which could easily be seen by children just by searching the store.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

It’s your position that is an emotion-based impulse, not property rights.

Nope, sorry. Once again, there is nothing emotion-based about expecting to use one's property within it's abilities as one chooses without interference from those who have no claim on it. That's the basis of property rights.

[dayglored]

> If a business owner says you must share my moral views in order to consume my hamburger or buy my iphone or what ever I will go somewhere else.

Correct.

> I cant make the distinction that private business imposing their moral view is good and government imposing their moral view is bad.

You are still confused. A private business does not "impose" anything -- they do not make laws, and cannot control what you do. Just ignore their product.

Government imposition is different -- they make laws that control what you do.

[dayglored]

> I find it simply amazing how many folks think it acceptable to impose their moral compass on others

Wow, amazing is right -- you are STILL confused.

Apple isn't "imposing" anything on you. Just don't buy their products.

Look up the word "impose" for this context. A private business can do no such thing.

[NYCslicker]

You are construing what is being sold too narrowly. By the very nature of this product, you are buying both a product and a service. It’s not just an object like a rock. True, you are buying the object, but you are also buying a service. Apple choose to sell you a product and a service, if you don’t like either one, again, don’t buy.

[montanajoe]

You are right I am confused by conservatives who find this acceptable..

[NYCslicker]

Fair enough.

But what you are probably not considering fully is that it’s probably not a moral decision as much as a business one.

Its probably a business decision calculated on the moral decisions of others. And a business has a right to condition its products in a way that will make it the most profit. If the business had calculated that it would have made more profit by catering to another set of moral standards, say those who want to see porn on the device, that would have been an equally valid business decision.

Further, those to defend “property rights” of the consumer and either deliberately or by omission want to exclude the property rights of the producer, are kind of in a philosophical corner, or a deliberately opportunistic position, which uses the deliberate omission of the same set of rights for a business, because a business is a collection of individual owners and individual workers, and it all boils down eventually to individual property rights.