The second example you gave relates to action, not to speech. I think everyone would agree their is a difference between the two. Speech, in and of itself hurts no one. Maybe it insults them, but it does zero physical harm. However when certain actions are taken, then harm is committed.

I totally agree with you that apple is within their rights. That is why if consumers are unhappy with this decision they need to speak up about it. That's how the market works. If a company does something you dislike you have the ability to speak up about it and if they don't change and you feel strongly enough you can stop supporting them.

No, people who are offended by it won't purchase it, but they will notice it. This has been misused as simply a cheap form of promotion, but originally it was used as sort of a wake up call, an attempt to wake people up to a cause the artist was promoting. Back when music usually had a deeper, often political meaning, it could be powerful, now it doesn't really have much meaning due to the fact that half the songs on the radio swear because its "cool".

Try expressing very extreme emotion without resorting to some "filler" words like profanity. Even if people substitute words like "darn" for "damn" they still need to use filler. Its extremely difficult to expression that heightened emotional tension without something in that "filler" role.

Sure, you can explain the emotion without the filler. But sometimes its better to take the more visceral route instead of using metaphors.

Who are you trying to "shock" or "impact"? If your peers use the same profanity, there is no shock or impact value. Therefore, you are trying to shock or impact those who are offended by such language. What's the point? They aren't going to seek out or buy such material anyway, are they? So, unless you force the profanity upon them, you have no audience to shock or impact.

Second, standing in line at a college football game. A couple of drunks behind me couldn't string two words together without one being profane. The man in front of me had his 9'ish year old daughter with him. I asked the drunks politely to please tone it down because of the child. They immediately did, to their credit. That alone tells me they certainly didn't have to use profanity to adequately express themselves, so why do it to start?

No one has ever given me a rational or even close to good reason to use profanity; shock, and impact can be better had through other words.

But, I thank God the US constitution protects those who have no other way to express themselves, within lawful and constitutional constraints. Because it protects me, too.

It's true that others may boycott apple if they accept this app, however that is a business choice apple has to consider. But I personally think that the majority of apples consumers have no problem with this app. (At least I know I wouldn't, and I would probably get the app myself if I had an iPhone/ iPod touch)

Therefore I would advocate that apple returns the app to the store.

While some may not buy from Apple because the reject someone's work. Still others, who agree with Apple, may not buy from Apple if they accept it.

Profanity is neither hip nor cool. It is the vestige of a poet (or other person) who has no other vocabulary, but that's my opinion…

Everyone has a moral line. Where do you draw your line at "free speech"? Should George Carlin (may he rest in peace) be able to give his 7 forbidden word bit to a class of 6 year olds?

Should a pervert be able to run around an elementary school playground masturbating in the name of free speech?

Should Apple be forced to carry music which it deems inappropriate for what ever reason they want despite other seemingly contradictory decisions?

No…

Democracy is a rule by majority. It leads to chaos. A republic, which is what the US is, ruled by law, not a majority like a democracy. That's why your neighbors can't vote to make you move because they don't like the smell of your BBQ. Laws govern what one can and can't do. You can BBQ any smelly thing you like until it breaks a law.

Apple is not censoring. They are within their rights.

Put an "R" rating on it, or something like that, and then let people download it already!

Corporations have the ability to censor speech but they have to answer to the consumer, and if the consumer disagrees with their actions then the corporation either adjusts or loses customers.

Governments don't have that kind of feedback system, you either follow blindly or they lock you up, or worse… Granted, democracy is designed to institute a feedback system, but as John Stuart Mill would point out, tyranny of a majority is no better than tyranny of the few.

Is this just because you got them on a bad day, or is it because they're tightening up what they approve, or did they make a mistake in letting it through the first time? Who knows?

Why not just slap a Parental Advisory logo on this and be done with it?

I suspect the same thing is going on at Apple. One person didn't find anything offensive with 'Baby Shaker' but another person found something offensive with 'The Downward Spiral'. No matter how many training sessions or meetings the review groups have there are always going to be inconsistencies like this because you can't get two people to think exactly alike.

I'm betting this decision will be overturned and the app will be approved once it is re-reviewed.

But as far as apple goes, yeah they have the right to do this, but I think it seems extremely hypocritical of them to remove an app like this when so many others with equally objectionable content stay, not to mention that if they're willing to sell the downward spiral I don't think they should have much of an issue with the app in the first place.

I would also guess that if the app somehow brought in money for them it would still be up. But because it was free, well you know…