Apple bans Nancy Pelosi bobble head

OK, so where is the Steve Jobs bobblehead cartoon?

I'm an iPhone app developer, and I had an app rejected with pretty much the exact same letter from Apple. My app was called Heads of State, and when you touched the screen a random politicians head would appear, and you use the accelerometer to roll the heads around, in a bed of fire. It was supposed to be for stress release.

This is Apple's Cross to bare. If they want to be seen as being fair and consistant, then they are going to have to make the app approval team a very large group. Handling a million apps, it is probably impossible to get it right all the time, but the process needs to be bias and interpretation free. Apple should realize that satire and even ridicule are legitimate opinions…don't I'm a Mac ads ridicule PC'/Windows? I agree that Apple can set it's own standards in this situation, but it feels like they use those standards to hide behind rather than stay consistant. I say all this as a loyal Apple customer. I find little wrong with any product or feature that Apple has offered me over the years, but policy should reflect an even handed approach no matter how highly I regard Apple they need to find a better way to deal with their verifications.

And people are surprised at this? Come on, it is typical Apple behavior! They've been doing this for years before there was any "iAnything".

Remember, folks. Droid does what the iDon't!

Apple is evil

Only republicans can be ridiculed, blame it on Bush…

So…wait. Ridiculing public figures is not okay…but ridiculing the average joe is? Why are public figures "off-limits"? Isn't that the risk they assume and endure because they are public figures? If you're gonna have a policy about ridiculing people – it should be universal and not discriminate against the "less famous".

Here is what I wrote when Alec Vance's Freedom Time App was rejected last year, and I still think it's true:

It's Apple's attitude towards developers submitting apps to the iTunes App Store of "You play by our rules or you don't play at all" which is ultimately going to prevent Apple being successful with _all_ of iTunes. No wonder many media companies are making deals elsewhere, giving other online retailers the DRM free music content and TV Show / Movie content that Apples so badly want to sell. Apple is not part of our government's checks-and-balances system; let the Supreme Court decide what apps are offensive, obscene and indecent (if it has to go that far.)

Apple has created a noose of responsibility for themselves in their overly restrictive iPhone/iPod Touch app policies. Because they insisted on creating the only (legal) avenue for obtaining apps for that platform, they have to deal with their fear that many of their customers see Apple as being ultimately responsible for the apps, not the developers. Where's free enterprise and the spirit of innovation that Apple so highly values in this case?

if its as good as you say it is, then why not have it ported to other phones?

I can't recall ever seeing Nancy looking so good.

(((sigh))) Whatever! Let's move on people. 2012 is almost here. (smile)

what mr de-witt fails to understand is that as a private enterprise apple has the right to censure any thing they choose.

very simple.

"Ridiculing public figures by caricature is one of those rights honored in American history and enshrined in the Constitution."

Sure, but the 'right to have a private enterprise sell my satire' is not.

I really love this reasoning. It happens all the time. My local tv station cancels South Park? An attack on my freedom of speech! T.G.I. Friday's won't let my bridge club play cards over dinner? An attack on freedom of assembly!

Apple finds this offensive? The same Apple that approved the "Shake A Baby?" app? Apple's response is purely hypocritical and needs to re-examine what it's approval process – as well as who is making those decisions.

A couple of errors, "Griggs had shown the finished [to] app around and stirred up some interest," and "What someone at the iPhone Developer Program doesn't seem [to seem] to understand."
Funny article.

Let's forget about your supposed intentions one way or another with this title. The fact is, intentions aside, that it's very misleading. Saying one persons name in a group insinuates that not everyone is involved. No one reading that would assume that all congresspeople would be involved. "Otherwise," they'd say, "everyone would be mentioned." It's just a misleading title no matter what you were intending, and if you want to maintain your journalistic credibility, you'll change it.

This is nothing more or less then content censorship. It starts with one device at a time because it is controlled by a particular "company" or "way of thought" then it will be "what they want us to see". Oh well maybe Apple will becom big brother.

this gets rejected and that shaken baby app from a few months ago got approved? odd…

Amy – Notwithstanding my ethical opposition to the DMCA, I am not saying Apple lacks the right. I'm saying only that it's really ironic that the guys who ran the Big Brother commercial back in 1984 are protecting Big Brother's public image while using Big Brother's legal mechanism (said DMCA) to prevent a user from cracking the SDK and obtaining Griggs' distributable outside of the iTunes store.

PED – While I won't pester you about your credentials, or presume to know anything about journalism, I have to agree that this post is a little bit politicized…not by the title, for it is accurate, if incomplete, but by the "Pelosi" tag.

Of course you picked Pelosi for the headline to bring out the worst in the rejection story, even mentioning Glen Beck in the story. You did it to bring the flamers out and to get more clicks. We're not ignorant now.

Apple has always been sensitive about anything they are associated with that may be deemed as negative or debasing of political figures. At a time when politics couldn't get much dirtier, I really appreciate that. S

o they have a higher standard than others. Apple has pretty much always taken the high road on these kind of issues. Why do you think that the author of these apps didn't start at Android's door. It's the difference between "works" and "works pretty good". Keep it tight Apple and forget "works pretty good". Most Apple complainers are the ones that can't, haven't or don't own one for one reason or another. If you can't have an Iphone then the Android works pretty good!

If Apple rejects it, then they lost me as an iPhone customer. If another company offers a product that is free of political backhanded deals, then I'm going with them. Google anyone?

Why have a "bobble head" doll of pea brained Pelosi. The real thing is enough of a bobble head.

So the headline should actually be "Apple bans Congressional bobble heads"….

What is an Apple?
signed,
I am PC

"ex ped: Sancto Joe, the headline was chosen to attract attention — that's the purpose of a headline."

Agree, but you don't have to do so by maling it look Apple chose to reject because of Pelosi which is exactly what your headline does. In my book, that is called misleading.

My roommate has an iPhone and a few apps for it. One is a fart app. You push a button and it makes a fart noise.

Another app is a flashlight. The screen turns white. Somehow it's supposed to be a replacement for a real flashlight. It doesn't really work that well.

Another app is a shotgun. You shake the phone to make it load and then shake it again to make it fire.

So what's the point of all this or the iPhone?

What a horribly inaccurate headline. Is there no copy desk for your online edition? Disappointing that CNN has allowed such an egregious violation of basic journalistic standards.

ex ped: Dear veteran news copy editor, would you like to discuss? Send e-mail to ped@mac.com.

I wonder where 'J Moore' went to business school… Anyway, this obviously isn't Apple's first questionable app call. Maybe that's why the Company has 5 jobs posted for "iPhone App Reviewer" in Santa Clara Valley.

Wow, the gall of Apple!

Thanks for the help in deciding between an iPhone and a Droid.
Being a verizon customer already, now makes it easier know what kind of people they have censuring apps.

The major issue here that no one seems to notice is that LOTS of apps get rejected and then are accepted on appeal. In this case, if the author had explained to Apple that the caricatures are protected free speech and are not derogatory AND that politicians are public figures and unable to sue, presumably also asking to speak with a supervisor, there's a good chance it would have been accepted.

Instead, on the first form letter he received, he runs off to his blog and starts with the "Apple is EVIL" nonsense.

Apple made a mistake by rejecting this app – I think that's pretty universally agreed. But the author made a mistake by not working with Apple to get it accepted. Is he more interested in getting his app out there or attacking Apple? It seems to be the latter.

Everybody needs to quit buying Apple products as well as Bose and other price fixers. They do not believe in the free-market system and consumers get taken. Other companies make as good or better products. Let's support those companies.

First of all, to bring a constitutional right into the discussion is absurd. There is no constitutional issue here, as noone is claiming the developer is not permitted to create the image, the issue is that Apple is seemingly unwilling to distribute the image through the iTunes service, which is their right. Get it right. That said, Apple is crazy not to add these to its store. They're hilarious, and not at all offensive.

Not sure why apple product owners are so disappointed, you should be use to apple's dictatorship, getting what they want to give you and not what you want…

Just convert it to an android app. We be glad to have it. Sounds great.

Don't worry Apple, Blackberry will put it out and make a fortune off it and you will kick yourself in the ass.

Hey just post it as an Android app. it'll get picked up, guarantee it.

PED, some people get off by telling Apple how to run its business; some even make a living at it (you do). But, it's because that they do their own thing (commercial enterprise) that they're still in business (not too shabbily either). They evidently know more about the constitution than PED.

Definitions of Bobblehead on the Web:

* A bobblehead doll, also known as a bobbing head doll, nodder, or wobbler, is a type of collectible doll. Its head is often oversized compared to its body. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobblehead

Main Entry: bob·ble·head doll
Pronunciation: \ˈbä-bəl-ˌhed-\
Function: noun
Date: 1964

: a doll having a head that makes repeated bobbing movements

Since when is the term "bobblehead" pejorative?

I own the device, so I have the right to decide what Apps I want.
———

Not exactly, my friend. You can actually put whatever app you want on your phone and create whatever app you want, it'll cost you about 5k though to hire someone to create it for you. So technically, they are not stopping you from putting whatever app you want on your phone. However, apple owns the app store and they have the right to sell whatever they want. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the app, but it is totally within their rights to sell whatever they choose to sell.
Also, companies do this all the time in some way or another. Can you run garageband or pages on a PC? So yes, companies can tell you what you can/cannot run on their products.

i can expect the Apple Dude wlll sneer in a commercial over those dopey childish PC owners who like cartoons?

OMG… They will allow the shaken baby app but deny this app?

How long does it usually take for a comment to be moderated and then posted?

ex ped: Depends if I'm awake or asleep. As fast as I can get to it. In the case of your last comment, 17 minutes.

I wish the companies that make the paper that newspapers are printed on would start censoring what is printed on them. TV manufacturers should be allowed to control the content of broadcasters as well. Why the government allows APPLE to control the content allowed on a device is inexplicable.

Apple makes a superior product. If this story makes you switch products then you really haven't done your research. Big question, who cares. Apple has the right to decide what apps they want, end of story.

Don't assume one hasn't "done their homework" because they don't want to buy a superior product from an inferior company.

I own the device, so I have the right to decide what Apps I want.

I vote with my wallet. I will boycott Apple products. I will make no further purchases, and I will discontinue usage of any apple product I am currently using.

Close. Changing the headline to someone with an R in front of their name (McCain) or a different D wouldn't have made it more accurate. If you choose your headlines to attract at the expense of accuracy you shouldn't be surprised at strong feelings from commentors.Giving a sigh in your ex-ped responses indicates your getting tired of responding to similar comments but if you stand up in a crowd and make statements as poorly worded as this you can expect more than one or two people to take you to task. I still think it would be good if you corrected the commentors who were mislead by the title

Where can I buy 1,000 iphones!!!! In fact I'm going to go and buy a mac right now!

What school of Journalism did you go to? The headline is false! Your rational that a headline is there to attract attention is also false. This is not a unique requirement: You are also required to summarize the main point of the story. Other equally attention grabbing headlines would include: Balloon Boy Reports News

ex ped: Sancto Joe, the headline was chosen to attract attention — that's the purpose of a headline. But it was not meant as a joke, to be divisive or to further polarize anything. If you go to Tom Richmond's website — and I hope you do, he's very good — you'll see he offered up three sample pages: John Kerry, John McCain and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi seemed more newsworthy and more likely to draw readers, and so I chose that one. The headline was written to match the illustration. I don't mind if it stirs people up, but that wasn't its purpose.

You guys are so funny. Apple makes a superior product. If this story makes you switch products then you really haven't done your research. Big question, who cares. Apple has the right to decide what apps they want, end of story.

Submit it to the Android store. No rejections there!

Quite a long fall for a company that broke on to the scene with a commercial portraying Apple as fighting Big Brother Conformity.

Now not only are they protecting Big Brother's image by disallowing the ridicule of politicians, but also leveraging Big Brother's muscles by claiming that to jailbreak their phone is a felony under the DMCA.

Keep your toys and your lawyers, Mr. Jobs. I'd take a hard drive full of Melissa and Downadup (not to mention the ability to send SMS photos) over the labyrinthine license of your pathetic platform any day of the week.

This app sure doesn't look obscene to me. What the characters are doing in their offices, now THAT is obscene.

"ex ped: I admit that I thought Nancy Pelosi made a better headline than McCain or Kerry. I'm actually quite surprised that it's stirred up such strong feelings."

THANK you! As you can tell from some of the comments, people are finding far darker reasons for this decision of yours.

But why are you surprised? This country is polarized to an incredible degree, and you pop out a headline that focuses on one of the most polarizing figures out there.

Ask yourself what the reaction would have been from the OTHER side if, say, Sarah Palin was Speaker and you'd used her in your title. What you've seen in the way of comments would have been a love-tap in comparison!

Bottom line: You unthinkingly politicized this article. Big time.

Sorry LesPaul in Boise but the point was not that it was a violation of the constitution to reject the app but that Apple claimed the app was a violation of the law. Mr. Richmond has a problem with Apple claiming a legal reason that does not apply.

I'd encourage you all to read Mr. Richmond's blog regarding this as well as this article.

This isn't a first amendment issue, this is an issue regardig taste. Apple is not held to first amendment rights if they want to accept an application, or reject it. They can do as they wish.

Apple rejecting a very helpful application, because they feel Mr. Richmond's drawings were grotesque, and unflattering is just completely unfounded. If anyone is familure with his artwork, it's accurate, , very funny, but fairly tame as well. Your average political cartoon is far more insulting than any of his work, and the samples I've seen of this application.

Apple dropped the ball on this one. It's a great idea for an application, and Richmond is a top notch artist with a large following. I hope they change their mind.

Another reason I want to dump my iPhone. This is just outright censorship … give me a break. Apple's turned purist on us now. What's next?

Well, I have been hesitant to buy an i-phone, and now this pretty much seals it. I'll be buying a 'droid soon, and if this app is available, I'll get that too.

I hate to break this to you, but the Constitution protects you from the Government. Busiesses and corporations are not bound by it, which is why we have things like Non-Disclosure Agreements. Think you can take a gun to work and claim a Constitutional right?

I'm not saying that Apple is right in this, but you have to understand that Apple refusing to permit an app based on content isn't an infringement of a Constitutional right.

ex ped: Sigh. Raised and answered. See below.

Phil-
just admit it. You used that title because Pelosi is a lightening rod for the right and the top democrat. Several commenters clearly thought this app was about pelosi or dems in general. You took the time to try to defend your choice for the title and also to give a more clear explanation of the freedom of speech issues(which I think you should have taken the time to do in the article) but declined to correct people who were misinformed from your writting.
This article seems to be a better example to use in discussing freedom of speech. While I prefer it when writers are more accurate in their work /willing to call their own fouls when they err (you fell short on both counts in my opinion) I would defend your right to speech if the government tried to censor you.

ex ped: I admit that I thought Nancy Pelosi made a better headline than McCain or Kerry. I'm actually quite surprised that it's stirred up such strong feelings. And you're right, I should have done a better job explaining the constitutional issues in the story.

CNN should bve admonished for the misleading title of this article. They mislead readers into thinking that Apple did something against a critic of Nancy Pelosi only when the staement applies to all of Congress. It is this kind of biased sensationalistic reporting that is cheapening our public dialogue.

ex ped: With all due respect, Bill, if that's your idea of biased, sensationalistic reporting, you haven't been watching Fox News lately.

All this about congress and yet an app that mimiced shaking babies until they died was put into production until enough people showed outrage? Way to have your priorities sorted out Apple!!

Dear Morons,

Apple owns the iPhone.
Apple owns the AppStore.

If you don't like how either are being run, stop paying them. This isn't a governmental matter. This isn't a matter of censorship. If Apple decided not to allow an iPhone App because it used the color green too much… there would be nothing you could do about it AND there would be nothing wrong with it.

Don't like it? Jailbreak it, get a different phone, or deal with it.

ex ped: Kain, your comments might be better received if they didn't start off by calling everybody a moron.

The most offensive part of this article is its title. Apple didn't ban a Pelosi bobble head – it banned all bobble heads of all Senators and Reps. The article's title was written simply to stir up partisan fervor. Childish, to say the least.

Why is it that commentators that scream loudest about the First Amendment clearly have no understanding of hat is actually says nor do they understnad to whom it applies? Take a civics class, people. It s NOT that hard to figure out.

Down with Censorship!!! It is ridiculous. Think about it people, Apple is censoring this application. I would not normally have a problem with it if there was another outlet or method for getting the application on the device, however because Apple CONTROLS all aspects of the user experience, this is blatant censorship and should be reviewed by Apple again. iTouch user here.

It seems the author snuck a reply into my comment:

ex ped: What makes you think an iPhone app isn't constitutionally protected free speech?

It is. But the government isn't telling the creator of the app that they can't do it. It is Apple, a private company, simply stating that they are not going to distribute the app on behalf of the author. Which has nothing to do with a violation of "free speech".

ex ped: I understand that, Aaron. This issue has been thrashed out repeatedly in the thread below. To save you the work of scrolling through 60 or 70 messages, here's how I answered another reader earlier today:

I didn't mean to imply that Apple was required to approve any application, P. George. My point was that there is a rich history of political caricature in this country, and that Apple — like any other publisher — has nothing to fear from Tom Richmond's drawings. In fact, were they to be published in the App Store, Apple would be protected from government interference by the First Amendment and would have strong defense in civil court were the company to be sued for libel.

If Microsoft demanded they approve all software before people could install anything on their PC's there would be a federal lawsuit for anti-competitive practices within the hour.
I appreciate Apple's efforts to keep it's apps safe from a security standpoint (viruses prevention etc), however beyond that they are bringing the term big brother to a whole new level.

It would be nice if I could run the apps I want to run without having to jailbreak this iPhone.

I think its good that this issues is brought up in the media as I think its a neat app and it should be available. But to claim constitutional protection for an Iphone app is laughable. This is journalism at its worst. Can we get a real journalist to give the article a second try?

ex ped: What makes you think an iPhone app isn't constitutionally protected free speech?

Apple can do what they want of course, but to call these bobbleheads defamatory is a little bit lamebrained. I mean, has any sports star or fan ever complained about baseball bobbleheads?

It's a missed opportunity to make politics and our representatives a little more accessible to the general public.

Wow. ShakingBabiesToDeathApp is ok, but omg if you try to make it easier to reach politicians, that's not allowed?

I'M A PC.

I agree on the content – the title is very misleading…

Umm… The First Amendment only prevents the government from restricting protected speech. Apple is a private company. Thus, one can't claim Apple is violating your First Amendment rights.

change the title, you disingenuous hack. you are trying to make it look like this is a political issue i.e. "Apple is protecting PELOSI" when in fact it is not at all, and the policy has nothing to do with Pelosi. you are being EXACTLY like Glenn Beck – posting disingenuous stuff, so the average (below intelligence) conservative reader will freak out and email this to all his buddies as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy theorists.

I don't buy for a moment that you chose the title due to the Pelosi illustration. more likely, you chose the pelosi illustration to mesh with your sensationalist and absurd title. STOP.

Apple didn't put a kitty in the microwave. Apple is a company and has the right to accept or reject products. Arm twisting businesses by beating them over the head with the constitution argument is silly. I am sure some other company will pick up app.

US Constitution? There's an app for that, too!

Rejecting a useful app that would clearly provide a good service is ridiculous. This app gets rejected, but apps like Drunk Sniper and Zit Picker make it through? I believe Apple has some specific reason for not putting this through. Maybe they don't want to get negative press (most likely). Maybe they are trying to play nice with the government considering the high potential for antitrust investigations against them these days, since they are attempting to monopolize 'a few' different industries. Either way, while I know they preserve the right to reject an app for whatever reason they see fit, not including this app but including gross and truly offensive app shows their true colors.

Unbelievable… Apple has no problems featuring content on their device which includes an actor urinating on a picture of Christ, but they want to censor protected speech on something which MIGHT be perceived as "ridicule" of gov't officials… I'm not even a religious person, but that's beyond PC: it's blatant advancement of a political/social agenda

Phillip Elmer keep your conservative opinion to yourself please

I'm confused – it says Apple banned a Nancy Pelosi app, but it seems that it covers everyone in congress. So who made this a partisan issue – it doesn't seem like Apple did. Did the CNN writer?

I'm assuming this is more about the content than the caricature. How about, if you don't want people to post ridiculous or embarassing things about politicians, they don't DO ridiculous and embarassing things.

It's apples store, they get to choose what they want in their store.

Same people want the government to control everything and then will complain when they do.

Everyone starts out a democrat and learns to be a Republican (some just take longer than others)

The obvious work-around for this is to re-code the app for the Verizon Droid.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt

you have missed the point entirely. This is not a free speech issue, it is a property rights issue. Apple can allow or forbid anything they want in their own house.

Their decision not to use this app may cost them sales. I personally would love to have Bobble Rep, and will spend my money elsewhere if it becomes available.

Apple is getting too full of themselves, they need to BACK OFF and stop trying to control everything. It's sad how power hungry they're becoming, considering they're humble underdog beginnings.

By controlling them, they keep the app store from becoming overwhelmed with garbage.

I find it amusing and a bit disconcerting that a number of people below have stated something along the lines of the following…

It's Apple's product they can decided what is on it/used for.

I may be naive, but when I give a company my hard earned cash to purchase one of their products, doesn't it become "mine" to do with as I will? In the case of the IPhone, I then pay an ongoing fee each month to use that phone via AT&Ts network.

I find it interesting that at least a few of you feel that you had no rights because it was Apples product. What if AT&T decided that they found certain web content to be objectionable and they were going to systemically block it? What if Time Warner, Cablevision, or Comcast said something similar? Now I know this isn't a direct parallel but it's close enough.

I'm far more upset over the title of this piece than the rejection of the program by Apple!

Maybe you think using Speaker Pelosi in the title was a joke, or maybe you thought it would attract more attention to your article.

But in case you haven't noticed, we are polarized as a country, and Speaker Pelosi has become a symbol to one half of the polarized for everything they hate about the federal government. So neither of those reasons is worth the divisiveness that you've encouraged.

Change the title.

Please.

ex ped: Sancto Joe, the headline was chosen to attract attention — that's the purpose of a headline. But it was not meant as a joke, to be divisive or to further polarize anything. If you go to Tom Richmond's website — and I hope you do, he's very good — you'll see he offered up three sample pages: John Kerry, John McCain and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi seemed more newsworthy and more likely to draw readers, and so I chose that one. The headline was written to match the illustration. I don't mind if it stirs people up, but that wasn't its purpose.

Well I have e-Bay'ed my iPhone, I think Apple has crossed the line leading to the infirmary! If I lived in a third world, I would have had a different(repressed)opinion obviously, but this is still America right?

Misleading title. Your defense is that the picture depicts Pelosi. So if you're writing an article about the recent devastation in El-Salvador and you see a guy waist deep in water, do you title the article "GUY WAIST DEEP IN WATER" or do you title it more appropriately to the content, like "Devastation in El-Salvador kills dozens"?? There's no place for tabloid style headlining on CNN in my opinion.

Apple doesn't even have to offer a reason for rejecting the app.

I agree that Apple can do whatever they want even if it's silly. For those of your touting open source, remember that more hands in the kitchen doesn't necessarily make dinner faster. Because apple is closed source and restricts developers, system resources are utilized efficiently and you don't get the problems of multiple programs trying to use the same resources.

It's Apples phone and people submit apps accordingly. Since Apple owns the rights, they also have the right to pick and choose as they see fit. When you're King you can rule the kingdom.

Nobody is forcing a gun to your heads making you buy Apple product. Don't act like the friggin world is ending because of a lame app. If this is your biggest issue in life then you have far more serious problems.

Well if the guy that drew these was on a couple of different FOX shows it must be an anti Democrat app because you don't get invited onto FOX unless you are anti Democrat or you are a Democrat invited so they could humiliate you in front of an audience.

There are well over a dozen Apps that list and give background on Members of Congress – this one adds only the caricatures.

Apple is getting too full of themselves, they need to BACK OFF and stop trying to control everything. It's sad how power hungry they're becoming, considering they're humble underdog beginnings.

If I gave you some insulted pictures to sell for me… would you?

*YOU* would be the seller… not me.

Would you agree to sell ANYTHING? Or would have have certain standards?

Apple has fully agreed to sell 100,000 apps… more than 2 *BILLION* copies of them.

… but those apps followed some simple guidelines.

Would you want someone calling *YOU* a bobblehead? Your kids? Your wife? Your sister?

"I'm so flattered! Millions of people are calling me a bobblehead in that iphone app".

hope this begins to wake up the blind legions of apple worshipers….

Apple, this is what you asked for by controlling all content in the iPhone. Now you spend your time with the PC police because you yourself opted to approve or reject every app. If you pursued a hands off approach, you would neither be responsible for the apps posted nor libel for their content. Is this all worth your time and money?

"Folks need to get a grip and understand Apple's products are not an open platform. They strictly control what can or cannot be used in their products.People who complain obviously have never owned an Apple product before."

Gee, you know what – I've used Apple's products before. I've even written Mac software. And never once did I need anyone's approval to install or write any piece of software I wanted to.

Anyone who thinks these caricatures seriously "ridicule" anyone needs to get a life.

Maybe it's free speech to be allowed to "ridicule" public figures, however, when someone writes an app and asks Apple to sell it, they are asking APPLE to (indirectly?) ridicule the figures, or at least condone it, which is something Apple doesn't wish to do in this case.

I certainly wouldn't stand for someone sticking a sign contrary to my beliefs in my yard and claiming they have the rights under "free speech." (my wife excepted, of course).

The problem is that Apple has hired a small army of low-grade morons to approve apps. No thinking person could possibly have any objection to this app. Hopefully this will get sorted out in time as the market for Android apps grow. As long as Apple is stuck with AT&T, their phone is going to suck anyway.

Apple is trying to behave like AOL in the mid 1990s, acting as a gatekeeper for content. But worse than AOL, Apple is applying a faulty, inconsistent "curator" parochial and in loco parentis mindset that is simply going to fuel competitors such as Google Android and various MS devices.

I'm sure caricature is the least degrading experience Congressmen/women have to worry or care about, most of them do worse on their own. Most of the caricatures are flattery per Pelosi's example. Apple should eliminate their popular PC TV adds if they are worried about defamatory content with their name on it. This is pure politics on their part and blatent CYA because they don't have the stones to post the app.

This is very consistent with Apple's practices historically. Personally, I've never appreciated Apple's control-freak approach to business, either as an engineer or as a customer. Their gated-community model is why the superior Mac became a market also-ran to the IBM PC and the scourge known as Window$. Their control-freak ways will squander yet-another technical leadership position in the PDA sector, lol. (Pride goeth before fall, Job?)
I do not purchase Apple products, nor do I recommend them to others. If you feel the same way, don't give Apple any of your money either.

Let me be the first to say I love America, however for those of you suprised by this action , you need to open your eyes and get real. From Private Corporations to Federal/State/Local goverment, nothing bypasses the modern day need to be PC, "Play Nice", everyones a winner , lets reward mediocrity attitude. I know that may be a little off subject but ….

The choice of title for this article is incredibly misleading. Since when is Pelosi all 540 members of Congress?

ex ped: Think of her as, shall we say, a representative of all 540 members.

I support Apple's right to decide what products will be offered for THEIR product in THEIR store. That said, they find an app such as this inappropriate, and yet they make available an app that simulates something as gruesome and insensitive as baby shaker. This is currently a free country and I am exercising my rights to not purchase their product.

I think its funny. Pelosi is nothing but an Obama yes man.. That makes her a bobble head. Apple is too liberal.. They would allow it if it was Bush.

The right to ridicule public figures is not in fact enshrined in the Constitution. That august document forbids the government from policing speech, but does not require private parties to facilitate any speech that is submitted to them. Apple may be erring from a PR perspective, but legally they are on perfectly sound footing.

ex ped: Point made and answered. See below.

1. I think Apple has the right to enforce its user agreement as long as it does so uniformly and fairly. (Banning Pelosi bubbleheads while allowing Palin bubbleheads, or vice versa, would clearly be inappropriate.)

2. But just because Apple has that right, doesn't mean that they have not gone a bit too far here. PED has a good point about the Apple agreement referring to libelous, etc images, but political charicacture is clearly a well-established practice and a legitimate 1st Amendment defense for Apple and the App developer. And the idea of using these images as an adjunct to a database on politicians is I think a particularly appropriate/worthy use.

3. But I think PED's choice of title was unfortunate, as it implied that -only- Pelosi's image was used this way.

4. Some of the other comments on this thread go a bit beyond the pale.

I do think banning this is ridiculous.

However, having said that, the iPhone is Apple's property, and they can do with it as they wish .

Folks need to get a grip and understand Apple's products are not an open platform. They strictly control what can or cannot be used in their products.

People who complain obviously have never owned an Apple product before.

I am so sick of writers asserting legal "right" for which they know NOTHING – for example "ridiculing public figures by caricature is one of those rights honored in American history and enshrined in the Constitution" this stunningly ignornat rhetoric of Constitutional protection fails to understand that these protections are for the people against the GOVERNMENT – they have very little application in the contecxt of a liencsing agreement (between private parties). IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CONSITITUTIONA ANT HE LAW HAVE A CLUE BEFORE YOU OPEN YOU MOUNT YOU IDIOT!

ex ped: Other readers have made that point — without the shouting, name-calling or spelling errors, I might add — and I've tried to answer it. See below.

Well, as a die hard Apple user, I am no looking seriously at microsoft products. I don't need some pin heads in Cupertino deciding what is okay and what isn't.

As far as I'm concerned it is their right, but I don't have to buy their products (A lot of them over the years) or through their products like iTunes if they feel they can control political discourse.

A caricature is just an over-exaggerated illustration of a person's features. I wouldn't necessarily consider it as riduculing someone. I think it's just Apple's way of playing nice with politicians considering some of the anti-trust investigations aimed at them.

I hope he makes this app for Android… I will download it in a heartbeat.

It is the companies right to reject any app. A corp is not a Republic and not governed by democratic rule. However there is always Google Android Android is the smart phone OS of the future.

ex ped: Point made and answered. See below.

So what you are saying is that people have a Constitutional right to add an application to the iPhone? Really?

Can I add a column to your website? Do I have that right?

Next time, give it a few minutes of thought before clicking "post", ok?

ex ped: I didn't mean to imply that Apple was required to approve any application, P. George. My point was that there is a rich history of political caricature in this country, and that Apple — like any other publisher — has nothing to fear from Tom Richmond's drawings. In fact, were they to publish them in the App Store, Apple would be protected from government interference by the First Amendment and would have strong defense in civil court were the company to be sued for libel.

This article doesn't really related to Nancy Pelosi specifically. I read it because I thought Apple was getting political in who can or can't get ridiculed, but it turns out they banned all the images of any congressmember so your title is misleading and upon finishing the article, it turns out, it's a nonissue.

Proper order! you wouldn't want the American christian right approving a fatwa on Apple moderators

Thanks for replying to my previous post with: "ex ped: I chose that headline only because the post was illustrated with Nancy Pelosi's caricature."

But I hope you are aware that this article is linked from other sites, finance.yahoo.com for example, and only with its headline? Sorry, but for me this is either a case of shoddy editing or deliberate misrepresentation.

Both nothing to be proud of.

Apple have their right under the constitution as well. One great thing about this country is if you don't like something you don't have to go there, buy it, see it, or force to hear it. And just because Apple is a publicly traded company, doesn't mean that they have to do everything the people want them to do, like putting the bobble heads on their aps.

"we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains content that ridicules public figures"

Is Jobs serious? it's against Apple policy to ridicule public figures? No wonder Apple and the Chinese government get along so well.

Just another reason to add to my list on why i am and always will be ANTI-apple…won't take but a couple of years when open source such as google mobile OS and others to come take a very big bit into the apple and send its shares free falling. This developer should submit it to the google application store where its open source and no restrictions.

I guess I missed the part of the constitution that said that all developers have a right to have their iPhone apps accepted by Apple. This is their company policy. This guy should either suck up or shut up. He's not the first app developer to have to re-submit.

I agree with Banning the Bobble Heads but I am Sure if it were just republicans it would have been allowed.

Apple was correct in not allowing this ap to be posted to their store. Regardless of the general intent, with the way this country is polarized right now every little thing is chum in the water. Easier to avoid the conflict than start another silly political fight.

Why not write a version of the app for the Android 2.0 OS? I'm not sure what their restrictions are, if any, but I doubt they're as anal as Apple's. Then Verizon can add it to the iCan't ad campaign for the new Droid phone…

Apple's right to run their business the way they want to usurps the right to free speech. The 1st amendment prevents GOVERNMENT from abridging the right to free speech. It does not prevent private entities from regulating speech on their networks and in their private property.

I'm sure there are Apple's rivals which would probably consider the App…

I also think Government pressure may have influenced Apple to reject this app because the Democrats are afraid of being bombarded and lambasted with communication. They don't want to make it easy for Americans to contact their congressmen and they are afraid of opposition. Just remember Government officials. You work for us, we pay your salaries and you need to be working and available for the people and not trying to avoid our comments and requests. The Democrats seem to have their own agendas and wish to keep them closed to the American public.

"is that ridiculing public figures by caricature is one of those rights honored in American history and enshrined in the Constitution."

No, the Constitution fobids government interference from freedom of speech. Apple is not the government.

Regardless of how stupid this is of Apple, they are certainly not violating the Constitution. Those who go around proclaiming "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press" every time just make themselves appear ignorant.

Offensive speech is part of the cost of free speech.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt, you *did* get too Glenn Beck about it. Constitutionally protected free speech allows individuals to create caricatures without fear of government reprisal. This right in no way compels Apple to sell such a product. Your attempt to frame this as "Apple doesn't understand rights" is a weak exercise in shoddy populist journalism.

make sure you allow the program/app on windows mobile. we will all certainly enjoy it there!

Buy a droid, no censors for their apps

Frankly, the characterization of Peolosi shown is extremely generous. In true life she looks more like a deer in headlights.

I have one question: could you rip off their bobble heads, only leaving the stretched spring attached? If so, I'm sold!

Interesting how the author is making this rejection all about "Rights" of Americans. You can't make this a free speech issue – Richmond still has the right to create, distribute, and promote his viewpoint. Just understand that this corporation, Apple, is not at all obligated to carry it. His rights are entirely protected. It is a false argument.

RE: I support Apple for their stand which is very logical in current world, where we have seen how a caricriture has created choas in Europe two year back, if you remember.
iPhone is global utility beyond USA sovereign and global company they need to have strict policies rather than risking it's investors hard earn savings.
We are looking apple share to move beyond $300 and become American pride.

You my friend are a Capitalistic idiot and it's people that think like you complete morons who have no ethic but greed and money. Since you have no Constitution in Canada I forgive you. You will be sorry when the day comes when you have no rights or money. You can't read well either because the app is just a way to contact important Government officials. Take a pill!

Just another reason why I don't want a iPhone. EVERYTHING has to go through an Apple filter.

"and maybe a lesson in libel law."

Are you an attorney? If not, you're in no position to make that statement. Apple has to consider libel laws in every state AND every country where they sell iPhones. What might be permissible in one country might be grounds for legal action in another.

I'm not an attorney, but I spent 5 years as the Chief Sysop of a very active (up to 500 messages/day) forum on CompuServe. We had the ability to delete messages or move them to a private area. I and my staff were under strict instructions from CompuServe AND from our boss, who WAS an attorney, to immediately remove any message that sounded like it might be libelous or defamatory. The key, he said, was that, because we COULD remove messages, we were in a more vulnerable position than, say, a BBS that didn't monitor comments. The Communications Decency Act changed the situation, but it mostly made it more complicated.

In this case, Apple is applying its rules uniformly, without regard to the "public figure" status of the subjects.

"ridiculing public figures by caricature is one of those rights honored in American history and enshrined in the Constitution."

.Where in the Constitution or Federal law does it say that a publisher (which is probably how Apple would be viewed by the courts, given that they review and approve apps) must publish every bit of political speech that anyone submits? Apple is not "censoring" the developer. He is free to produce whatever political speech he likes, but Apple is not obligated to publish what he creates. If Apple did so, they might be held equally liable as the developer/author.

I suspect that Apple's attorneys reviewed this one. They may have been concerned about setting some sort of precedent and being put into the position of evaluating just how libelous/defamatory particular material is. (I.e., where do you draw the line? Why not fake nudes of politicians? Why not a bobblehead of the Pope?

BTW, why did you mention Speaker Pelosi? If all members of the Senate and house are covered, why not use, say, Senator Lieberman, or one of the Republican leaders? Oh, maybe this is a clue:

"He was booked to appear as a guest on Fox News next week with Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee."

How does the title "Apple bans Nancy Pelosi bobble head" connect with the article? If I understand correctly the application has not been rejected because Apple is particularly fond of Nancy Pelosi, but because Apple's developer team seems to interpret the term "defamatory" very broadly.

So I'd say you failed at "not to get too Glenn Beck about it" as a misleading title line like that is very much his style.

ex ped: I chose that headline only because the post was illustrated with Nancy Pelosi's caricature.

He can always go to that soon to be , just around the corner, massive, unstoppable, army of Androids.

Anybody remember the dead baby app Apple let slip out? Or how about the 5K dollar ruby diamond app? And they won't let this one out.LMAO….glad I don't own apple anything.

I think it's time Apple grew up and quit trying to police everything so much. Especially if it doesn't match their Liberal PC definition. I think it's time I moved my loyalties too. Bye Bye IPhone time to find something more open and refreshingly free of censorship….

Hey Raja,

Your stupid culture is not respected here.
We need to make fun of everything and everyone- let them know they are no better than anyone else

I've heard that iZinger was also very controversial, but was still approved on the App Store.

So, Philip, do you have a specific citation for stating that Apple thinks we're morons? I get exactly the opposite impression.

If you don't like the way they behave, there is always Zune, Blackberry, and Droid. I think there's a much better case to state that Microsoft thinks we're morons.

ex ped: I think you read too quickly, Forrest. That was Tom Richmond's quote and his opinion, not necessarily mine.

This story would not be so hilarious and hypocritical if these politicians did not so fully and completely deserve to be ridiculed. The politicians can dish it, but they can't take it. All we can do now is fire them unceremoniously; as quickly as possible.

Maybe they need to think about going to the google phone instead? There is always other ways to do the same thing for others.

makes you wonder if the 40 or so reviewers that Apple employs for the app-store have a manager, and, if so, maybe it's time for a new one.

I support Apple for their stand which is very logical in current world, where we have seen how a caricriture has created choas in Europe two year back, if you remember.
iPhone is global utility beyond USA sovereign and global company they need to have strict policies rather than risking it's investors hard earn savings.
We are looking apple share to move beyond $300 and become American pride.

No hard feeling for developer,