Back in May, Apple wouldn't let The Sun appear on an iPhone app because it reckoned the paper's Page 3 was obscene.
The Sun responded by claiming, as it always does, that it is a family paper and page 3 is just fun. Which is a little odd as not many families I know enjoy ogling young ladies' breasts together.
But now, with the arrival of the Sun's iPad app, there has been some sort of a climb down.
The Sun is allowed on to Steve Jobs newest platform and get by his 'no porn' policy by having customers confirm they are 17 years of age or over.
(As an aside, I find Apple's choice of 17 as a restricted content age a little odd as the law for this kind of thing is 18 years.)
If The Sun is admitting that its paper is for adults, shouldn't it be moved up a shelf or two at the newsagents and if it's got content that itself is admitting is age restricted, it might be fun, but is it really for the family?
9 comments:
Surely the problem here is Apple's absurd 'no porn' policy in the first place? People wouldn't have to make these daft arguments and pointless climbdowns if Apple just grew up and let people use their own computers for whatever they want.
"As an aside, I find Apples choice of 17 as a restricted content age a little odd as the law for this kind of thing is 18 years...If The Sun is admitting that its' paper is for adults, shouldn't it be moved up a shelf or two at the newsagents"
That's exactly why it's 17. 18 is the age for pornos. By negotiating it down to 17, the Sun is proving with actual proof, that it's not at all sexual and still suitable for minors.
Can't iPad and iPhone users just go to The Sun's website? Or is Page 3 done in Flash now?
Ker-tishhh.
17 is a strange age to set the bar at. You could theoretically have a married 16 year old fella who is "raising" a kid of his own, and yet still isn't allowed to look at a pair of tits on his own computer that his dad bought for him.
I like the idea of the inserts campaigning to let the girls speak for themselves if they're going to have comments attributed to them. I can't help but think it will be falling on deaf ears if it's aimed at people who "read" the Sun though.
Perhaps swamping the internet with Photoshopped pornographic pictures of Rebekah Wade and Kelvin MacKenzie with "News in Briefs" sections added full of left wing slogans might be a more fitting way to draw attention to these ridiculous sections.
Whilst I agree that The Sun is one of the most hypocritical gossip magazines in the U.K., breasts are NOT porn.
They are simply part of the natural human body. If you don't like the human body, get an operation to become a cat or something.
Perhaps The Sun is exploiting people. But that does not change the FACT that the human body is not porn. If it was, we'd been looking at porn every time we took a shower.
My penis is part of my natural human body. Is a photo of that porn?
Oh, and where do you stand on the unseen photographer/assistant helping the Page 3 models to maintain erect nipples? If I had somone do the same to my penis and we took photos, would we be approaching what is porn (in your opinion) yet? How about if the person helping me appears in the image? Is that porn yet? Just curious to see where the line is for you.
A bit late to this, but the 17 age limit is based on US legislation, see also the NC-17 film classification there.
PJ - that is one of the most naive arguments I've ever heard. Completely missed the point.
PJ - Most porn is pretty much entirely natural human body, just sometimes a natural human body with one or more bits of another natural human body stuck up it to varying degrees of comfort. And occasionally get some natural human body's natural human secretions over their natural human faces.
I'd say the term "porn" in these debates is entirely unhelpful, but if your definition of it leaves out the natural human body, it's basically going to be limited to cyborg bestiality. Don't forget, a genre where most of the participants are entirely naked for most of the time.
Post a Comment