No Sex Criminals Allowed (Maybe): Apple and ComiXology's Content Guidelines Examined
For the better part of a year, a controversy has been building regarding comics being "banned," "censored," or "pulled" from the ComiXology iOS app, which allows readers to download comics through Apple's App Store. The most recent dust-up with the ComiXology iOS app involves Matt Fraction and Chip Zdarsky's new sex-comedy comic, Sex Criminals. While the first issue of Sex Criminals was initially sold through the app, the trouble started when Apple did not approve the second issue for sale in the App Store; as it stands at the time of this article's writing, the third issue of the series has been banned from the app prior to its release, and the first issue has been pulled from the app retroactively. Given that the Comics Code is still at the forefront of many fans' minds when they hear "comics" and "not allowed," and that challenges in schools and libraries consistently land comics toward the top of the American Library Association's list of frequently challenged books, a lot of creators and readers are understandably distressed by the apparent censorship of comics by Apple. This article provides a brief glimpse into the problems with the ComiXology iOS app and how these issues fit in the larger history of questions regarding comics and their content. Apple's current content policy for iOS apps disallows content that is "overtly sexual" from being sold in the App Store. Of course, as anyone familiar with the history of obscenity in the United States knows, defining what is "too sexual" or deciding that something appeals only to the "prurient interest" (as the famed obscenity decision Miller v. California describes) is a moving target. Apple's policy is vague, opening the door for allegations of inconsistent application of their rules to different kinds of content. In April 2013, Saga #12 was not available through the ComiXology iOS app due to adult content -- the fact that the "overtly sexual" content in question involved depictions of sex between men led a number of fans to accuse Apple of homophobia or of treating gay content as somehow more "overtly sexual" than its heterosexual counterparts. After this allegation started spreading, ComiXology CEO David Steinberger went on record to say that it was ComiXology, not Apple, who had pulled the issue because they believed it would not comply with Apple's content policy. In the case of Sex Criminals, both issues contained roughly the same amount of sexual content and nudity, but one was approved while the other was disallowed, this time by Apple. In May 2013, ComiXology itself pulled 56 issues from the iOS app after determining their content did not meet Apple's guidelines. While most blogs and websites that had reported on the Saga issue posted corrections to indicate that it was ComiXology, and not Apple, who had rejected Saga #12, the predominant narrative regarding the pulling or banning of comics from the app tends to blame Apple -- after all, the same content is available on all of ComiXology's other platforms with no issue. However, ComiXology has been equally active in pulling content before it even gets to Apple, with Steinberger indicating that as a partner of Apple, ComiXology feels a duty to police their own content and make sure it meets Apple's standards. This is where the gap between what content is and isn't acceptable and who is responsible for making that determination opens up and potentially allows a lot of content to be rejected without explanation. For all its many faults, the reviled Comics Code Authority was quite clear about what kinds of content were prohibited, down to exactly what words could not be used. The standardization of the writing credit for DC Comics came about due to these restrictions; DC had to give writer Marv Wolfman a credit in order to demonstrate that he was a real person with that name, and that they had not improperly used the banned term "wolfman" when indicating that the story was told by a "wandering Wolfman." The Comics Code also had a clear purpose -- it was formed in order to placate comics opponents like Fredric Wertham and Estes Kefauver and protect comics from potential outside censorship or legal issues. Another bonus of the Code for many publishers was that it largely put Bill Gaines' EC Comics, whose gory horror comics were top sellers, out of business by banning words like "eerie" and "weird" from comics' titles. In contrast to the Code, Apple's content policy and ComiXology's policing of content do not appear to have emerged from a clear set of concerns or complaints from the public. In instituting their ban on "overtly sexual" content, Apple cited complaints from customers about pornographic apps, but the number or degree of these complaints remains vague. Likewise, ComiXology pre-rejects content for the iOS app based on a vague understanding of what might constitute "overtly sexual." What makes this policy even more baffling is that the rejected comics, such as Sex Criminals #2, are available through other Apple platforms, such as the iBooks store. Another issue with the way this policy is enforced is the lack of transparency or communication about exactly which content offends or has to the potential to violate the terms of service. Even the MPAA, which has come under criticism for many years for its lack of clear guidelines for how films are rated, attempts to describe to audiences what the objectionable content is. Filmmakers can also re-submit edits of films to try to secure a different (generally lower) rating. According to tweets from Sex Criminals writer Matt Fraction, the extent of the explanation he received about the rejection of his comic reads as follows: "We found that one or more of your In-App Purchases contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with App Store Review Guidelines." Given that the rejections occurred, in all cases, after the comic is finished and released, there does not seem to be any recourse for creators or fans besides creating a fuss online. This is not to suggest that editors should be looking for potentially objectionable content during the creation of a story or banning artists from certain kinds of depictions, but rather that standards need to be clear if they are to be followed. Studios that release NC-17 films know that they will suffer financially compared to if they had cut a film to achieve an R and that they won't be able to exhibit the film in certain venues; it does not seem fair that publishers and creators don't know in advance that they won't be able to sell their comic in the ComiXology iOS app. Given that rejection of content is coming from two sources -- Apple and ComiXology -- it's also harder for fans or creators to know where to direct their protests if they feel a certain comic is being targeted or treated unfairly. While ComiXology and Apple maintain that sexuality had nothing to do with Saga #12 being pulled, it's hard not to see a connection between that depiction, the depiction of full-frontal male nudity in Sex Criminals, and the tendency for content containing these kinds of depictions to be more heavily targeted for regulation in film and television. Again, without clear standards, it is easy to see how audiences would reach a conclusion about why something was rejected based on patterns found in other media. Effective protests are also more difficult because of the lack of transparency in who is responsible for rejecting content. If I'm upset that ComiXology rejected Saga #12, should I write them, or should I write Apple because it's their policy? Should I cease to purchase comics on ComiXology if I disagree with their pulling of titles, even if the titles are available on all platforms except the iOS app, or should I do the same with Apple, even though I can buy the title through the iBooks store? The dilemma is much the same for publishers trying to figure out how to distribute their titles in digital form; if I'm a publisher that deals with a lot of adult content, how do I decide if it's worth trying to get my comics into ComiXology without iOS app sales? While the inability to purchase a few particular comics from a specific iOS app seems (and probably is) minor in comparison to the large-scale, institutional censorship of comics of years past, the issues with the ComiXology iOS app point to a disturbing trend of increased vagueness, diffusion of responsibility, and lack of transparency in how media, particularly comics, are rated and understood. There's very little in Sex Criminals that would feel out of place in a raunchy comedy film like American Pie, but for some reason the content seems to be judged with different standards, perhaps in part due to the enduring perception that adult-oriented comics and animation might be mistaken for children's media. Without explanations or explicit guidelines, it's hard to tell what the future of comics on the iOS app is, or what the next battleground over censorship will be.
|
|||
|
Home |
Features |
Columns |
Culture Vultures |
Report Card
Indicia | Contact | Archives © Sequential Tart, 1998 – 2021 |
|||
