Apple rejects ap to encourage responsible citizenship for stupid reason

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/2009/11/09/apple-rejects-my-caricature-app/

Yeah, can barely believe this.  A guy came up with a fun ap that is basically a database of all members of Congress of both house the helps you contact them, find out who represents you and generally allow you as a citizen to be more involved in what your representatives are doing (or not doing, as the case may be) for you.

Instead of using just pictures, though, he opted for bobble-head like caricatures.  Apple banned this ap because of them for supposedly ridiculing public figures.

First of all, public figures deserve to be mocked anyway.  Keeps them honest.

Secondly, there's nothing at all that I can see here that's really ridiculing anyone.  These caricatures don't appear to be particularly offensive to me, and they cover all parties the same, from what I see.

So, is Apple being ridiculous, or are they right?  You decide.

[GogglesPizanno]

The Apple store being ridiculous regarding the approval of an iPhone app??
Noooooooo...... That never happens 

[Panther_Gunn]

That sounds like a decision that was handed straight down from the legal department.  All they worry about is covering their collective tail sections.  "Can it possibly, no matter how remote or miniscule of a chance, end up in a lawsuit against us?"   

[Tawodi Osdi]

Ridiculing politicians is as American as baseball and apple pie.  Using that as an excuse to not allow the app is no excuse at all.

[Ares_God_of_War]

I actually understand this 100%. Its not so much that I care but you get people like Sean Hannity or Micheal Moore involved and you can be losing cash pretty fast. It doesn't matter if both sides are picked on equally someone will spin it into Apple attacking them politically somehow. Honestly I live in Utah and our Senator Orin Hatch would probably jump against something like this pretty fast.

[Tortuga]

Seems like a good idea to me...although why not just use pictures or just the names?

Still, the App Store is hardly the model of good business decisions.  After all, they did let this app through.

[thalaw2]

Still, the App Store is hardly the model of good business decisions.  After all, they did let this app through.

That's absolutely horrible!  Contacting a Congressman is a good idea since there were all those PSA's about it. 

[lugaru]

It is probably Apple trying keep their name away from stories about people protesting or contacting their congressmen. Meh, there is a reason I avoid closed systems like theirs...

[Tawodi Osdi]

I think I would boycott Apple if I were actually in the market.  That baby shaking app is beyond the pale regarding poor taste.

[Epimethee]

From the rumours I've read, the problem with the app store approval process seems mostly to be that Apple is too cheap (?) to have enough qualified reviewers to approve the apps ? each reviewer needs to review ~ 20 apps a day. 

[Reepicheep]

The app is a really good idea, but there probably are several logical (maybe not convincing) for apple not to approve of it. We've already speculated a few here.

Its a shame, really.

[stumpy]

Actually, see the link catwhowalksbyhimself posted for an update. It looks like Apple has reconsidered its decision, apparently after their initial decision caused a lot of protest.

BTW, I don't really buy the idea that Apple puts the kibosh on applets like this because they are worried about being sued. Regardless of whatever litigious impulses a particular politician may have, it seems like there is really very little chance of a public figure getting anywhere in court against something like this. Public figures are parodied all the time and this applet, if I have the sense of it, isn't taking aim at one figure or party or ideology, though that isn't directly relevant, legally. What is important is that it would be a real feat to show that the applet was designed with actual malice, especially given that the images are clearly supposed to be caricatures. (As I understand it, libel in the U.S. doesn't obtain if the instance in question is clearly an expression of opinion not intended to be taken as fact or if it is so obviously ridiculous that a reasonable person wouldn't take it to be fact. That is, no one looking at those bobble heads would think they are supposed to be an accurate representation of the people depicted.)

I suspect that the Apple people who made the initial decision were just having a bad day. Or, perhaps, they are among the appropriately rare folks who think politicians are too dignified to suffer even such mild parody.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Personally, I think they were just taking the rule too literally and too strictly, probably most of that work is done by workers afraid to get in trouble for passing something they shouldn't, especially in light of some of the things that have been put on the service in the past.

At any rate, the situation is resolved now.  If I only had an iphone I'd probably get this thing.