Apple rejects game featuring ‘objectionable’ Pepe The Frog cartoon

Pepe the Frog is persona non grata at Apple,” Mary Papenfuss reports for The Huiffington Post. “The cartoon stoner amphibian, adopted as a mascot by the alt-right, is not so much deplorable as he is ‘objectionable’ by Apple standards, and the company has rejected a new game app featuring Pepe.”

“‘Pepe Scream,’ developed by Spirit Realm Games, is a kind of ‘Flappy Bird’ game in which users control Pepe by screaming into the phone,” Papenfuss reports. “The game doesn’t appear to be an issue — only the use of Pepe.”

“Another game featuring Pepe, ‘Build The Wall: The Game,’ was rejected by Apple in October,” Papenfuss reports. “But Pepe still lives. And though ‘Pepe Scream’ has been rejected by Apple, the game is available on Google Play. Spirit Realm told Motherboard that it’s considering dropping Pepe for another character so the game won’t be rejected by Apple.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Pepe the Frog is viverra amphibian non grata at Apple.

MacDailyNews Note: On September 27, 2016, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) classified Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character used by haters on social media to suggest racist, anti-Semitic or other bigoted notions, as a hate symbol.

Apple App Store rejects pro-Trump ‘Build the Wall’ game over ‘Pepe The Frog’ cartoon – October 21, 2016


  1. Apple offer many games and apps I find objectionable, unnecessary, irrelevant, and obnoxious. I simply don’t purchase them. However, when Apple interjects its narrow-minded, libtard ideologies into deciding what software it sells I have to call them out. Why not let market decide which softwares succeed and which fail?

          1. “True libtatards don’t censor! Voted you up anyway.” 10:44 a.m.

            I see you are a slippery fellow now changing your tune and not admitting your mistake after I corrected you earlier.

            Yes, TRUE liberals will fight to the death for you to have the right to have an opinion. You call it a WRONG OPINION. I call it OPINION …

            1. Since we’re in a pissing contest, several weeks ago I first told you the same thing you’re trying to tell me. You should know that I know that.


              From within…
              FREEDOM OF SPEECH
              While lovers of liberty in all lands have urged the necessity of freedom of speech, none put the case more pointedly than Voltaire when he said: “I wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall interpreting Voltaire

              Hence my paraphrase comment…

              I consider many speakers, both of today and in the past, to be entirely wrong, but I would prevent their right to speak, nor will I just say they have OPINION. No, they are subject to judgement for their speech, but no persecution. White Supremacists are WRONG in their opinion, it’s not just their opinion. But they have every right to express it.

          2. The liberals (not libertarian) of today aren’t as you speak…see Berkeley, the “birthplace” of free speech. There are numerous examples of highly regarded institutions of learning that don’t accept/permit deviations from “the code.” This is not an arcane statement.

            1. Berkeley was a “kick in the gut.” Your statement implies, it was an exception. In my opinion, the problem is culturally widespread and conservatives have little to do with it. Universities by position, have always birthed a good portion of culture. It’s been a long time in coming that their focus has not been on higher learning, but higher inculturation of their own design…w/ very little tolerance.

            2. There’s a difference between social intolerance and legal intolerance. There’s a difference in being booed off the stage and dragged off the stage into jail. The former is a right, the latter is fascism.

            3. Ok, but I’m not sure it makes your point. What starts as social intolerance often develops in to law (legal intolerance, as you call it.) The point is not the definition about what’s legal/soial, but what defines freedom of speech. It’s not a stretch to say that what was done at Berkeley was legal, but it surely wasn’t tolerant of another’s right to speak. It’s one example of many.

            4. No, the Consitution protects against legal intolerance. I agree that the prevention of speech, at Berkeley of all places, was antithetical to liberalism. They weren’t boo’ed they were prevented from speaking.

            5. Incidents like Berkley is a direct result of libtard indoctrination. These incidents are owned by libtards, they just won’t accept their culpability.

            6. Using Voltaire to substantiate liberal think is nothing more than nostalgic, because it’s a historical ref that has nothing to do with today. From where/who did the need for “safe spaces” arise and what is the implication? How many students have you read about that have failed, or been suspended or sent home b/c their thinking was contrary to their conservative teacher/professor? How many books/articles have been written opining conservatives are responsible for shutting down free-speech? I can’t remember one. Although Bill Maher holds some opinions I find repugnant, he is truly an agent of free speech and he has often voiced the opinion that it’s the dems/libs that compromise in this area.

            7. It’s not historical, it’s principle. Though (I think) we agree on the “sticks and stones” principle. People can be judged by what they say, they can’t be jailed for speech alone.

              (Don’t anyone even think about the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” tripe. That’s not a speech issue, it’s a reckless endangerment issue)

            8. You keep changing the focus. It’s not merely talking about principle, but what principle is really in effect today. Harkening back to a time when principle matched the idea of FOS is fine, but it’s very different today…in a widespread way.

            9. “You keep changing the focus.”

              Glad you noticed that and read you ran into it head on. It becomes difficult to have a conversion conversation or a spirited argument on equal footing. keeps going off on tangents and moving the goal post.

              Possibly this bait and switch to cover up error, I can only suspect as much …

          3. Apparently not if Apple makes itself Prime Censor and Book Burner. Unless what is offered for sale is illegal what other reason does Apple employ? Simple, Apple is censoring only because they want to.

            1. “Apple is censoring only because they want to.”

              Apple is censoring only the right wing because they want to. There, I fixed it for you.

              But you knew that …😎

      1. No. True Libtards DO CENSOR. They are stupid, mindless dogma bots and incapable of critical thinking.

        True LIBERALS do not CENSOR. Unfortunately, they are mostly not around today, thanks to poisonous PC, and the majority have EVOLVED into more practical and conservative positions. There, I fixed it for you.

        You actually CARE about votes that are being manipulated daily? Silly boy. To prove how much FAKE votes mean to yours truly, down vote me first and then I’ll follow, thanks …

          1. Amen, Botty.

            Clueless Cook has moved Apple from a non-partisan business under liberal Steve, to a prickly PC Libtard unconscious and easily offended company.

            His personal politics has poisoned the Apple …

            1. If one doesn’t actively support free speech, there is many things they can be, but liberal is not one of them.

              This does not mean that anyone cannot criticize or even ridicule a speaker, but they would not prevent someone from speaking.

    1. Speak with your dollars. Every Apple product you purchase perpetuates this mindset! Why empower them with the funds to put forth ideas in stark opposition to your own!

        1. You vote with your dollars by not buying from a liberal establishment. When they find that censoring right wing views hit their bottom line, that’s the only thing that will make them change their tune.

          1. …by that reasoning, I’m sure you’d agree that the inverse is also true: a conservative business can refuse service to a customer whose request is an affront to their principles.

            oh, probably not, huh?

            goddamned hypocrite libtard.

          2. If I boycott Apple and not buy their products how would they know they lost business? Accountants don’t use crystal balls.

            And if you are saying they would change their self righteous tune just to take in more almighty dollars, then they are just another business …

    2. This is freaking hilarious! The right attacking and baiting the left. The left attacking and baiting the right. And the moderates laughing at all of you wasting your time attempting to attack your political ideologies to Apple’s treatment of a cartoon frog.

      Damn you guys are a hoot!

    3. I am a Mac owner. I called iOS a walled garden since day one. So for years while the hyper political mud slingers on this forum praised iOS and hypocritically attacked anyone who proposed rules or limits on any aspect of your selfish world, your whining rings hollow.

      Anyone who has anything to do with ios has signed an agreement to abide by Apples arbitrary rules, which they alone change as it suits them. You have always known this. If you can’t stand authoritarian rule, then move to a free computing platform with no big brother. If you are too lazy to do that, then stfu.

      1. This is one of the best comments here. You’re absolutely correct.

        While I’m content inside of the walled garden of iOS, I do realize that for better or worse, decisions are going to be made for me regarding what content is considered appropriate or inappropriate.

        To date, Apple hasn’t blocked/removed any content that I’ve been interested in, including Pepe, so I’m good. Considering where Apple draws the line, I don’t imagine I’ll have any issues in the future either.

  2. So then how ever are Botty and Foghorn ever going to get the opportunity to buy It? It’s developer the opportunity to sell it? In what other store can they get this for their iOS devices?

    Censored environment, plain and simple!

      1. Let me get this straight. Did you just call Saint Jobs an ahole? The founder of the most successful company of all time?!?!?

        I’m speechless for a moment, but you are the major ahole …

      1. Cook is a goddamned “book burner.”

        “In an impassioned plea, Mr Cook, boss of the world’s largest company, says that the epidemic of false reports ‘is a big problem in a lot of the world’ and necessitates A CRACKDOWN BY THE AUTHORITIES and technology firms.”
        “‘It has to be ingrained in the schools, it has to be ingrained in the public,’ said Mr Cook. [caps mine]

        Apple CEO Cook: ‘Fake news’ is ‘killing people’s minds’

      1. I’ve never supported nor voted for any member of the Bush Crime Syndicate, as I have stated multiple times on this site in the last fifteen years.

  3. I can post the lyrics of many songs you can buy on iTunes that are objectionable. Is the content judged differently when it is sung over a melody or rhythmed over a beat. Why not just put an tag on the app so the customer can make an informed decision .

      1. Pepe is innocent! Free Pepe!

        He is not responsible for his mistreatment at the hands of the alt-right.

        We must restore Pepe to his rightful place. He only wants to “feel good, man!”

        1. DustyM: I agree, but I’ll say he shouldn’t be rejected so the left can have another “safe space”! Poor Pepe. People need to meet tonight at City Hall for a vigil for Pepe’s resurrection.

    1. And yet, well meaning conservatives the world over continue to give this leftist company the money to do whatever they want… And they’ll still line up for iPhones, MacBooks and iMacs anyway 🙁

      1. How dense are you?

        We give Apple money for great products that make us money.

        We don’t give them a free pass to do whatever they want. We bitch here on this forum for them to refrain and reform, while still buying the best tech.

        Any of this sinking in?

        1. You give money to a SJW company. Have fun with that.

          “We don’t give them a free pass to do whatever they want”
          The person that rejected the app, the person that wrote the rules for the rejection AND all their bosses all did so in part due to the money you provide them with.

  4. Pepe is now “mostly” a symbol of the the right, for leftists, a symbol making fun of them. As such, Apple clearly can’t have any of that. Such bad decision-making on Apple’s part. They bring so much criticism on themselves, but could avoid it all if they just left 90% of the dumb stuff they ban, alone, and let it ride.

    1. Agree Apple bad decision.

      They are dangerously crossing over from a free and open minded company to censorship backed by the intolerant PC left.

      Steve is rolling in his grave …

          1. You are either uninformed, or delusional. Who closed up iOS requiring “App Approval” exclusively by Apple and by fiat? It was Jobs.

            Anecdotally, Jobs once forbade all Wiley publications from the Apple store because they published “iCon Steve Jobs: The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business” which offended him. Not just the one book, but ALL Wiley publications. Good to know what I can buy on a platform (not an individual store) depends on the moods and whims of an ahole.

            The ban was later rescinded, but who honestly wants to be so beholden?

  5. What a frothing, self-congratulatory hot tub of bigotry. If it was a game with a corresponding symbol of Islamic superiority you’d all be for lynching the authors.

  6. A few points:

    1. This is not a debate about a right to free speech. The First Amendment does not create a duty for private citizens to avoid abridging the speech of others. The app developer here can say anything he likes, but he does not have the right to force Apple to assist him in spreading his message.

    2. Apple is not a common carrier like the phone company. As long as it complies with the various nondiscrimination laws, it can refuse service to anybody it pleases for any reason or no reason at all. When it lets an app on the Store, that represents a corporate choice just as much as the decision to reject the app. So this is not a legal issue, but a question of taste.

    3. Apple has a valuable brand to protect. If it quietly pocketed the proceeds from hosting objectionable speech, its brand would be criticized for seeming to adopt that message. Clearly, many of you do not agree with Apple’s judgment about alt-right symbols. You are just as entitled to that opinion as Apple is to its opinion. If enough people agree with you, Android will grow at Apple’s expense… or the reverse might just happen.

    4. You have to draw lines somewhere. How about a “Burn the Jew” app in which players get points by throwing screaming children into a blazing crematorium? How about “Kill the Crusaders,” expressly promising uncrackable encryption for its members to discuss Salafi philosophy and bomb making? You would not ban Pepe, but it is not your choice. Apple does have the choice where to draw the line, and recognized alt-right symbols are outside it.

    5. Don’t claim at this late date that Pepe the Frog is an innocent cartoon. The swastika had a long innocent history before the 1930s, too. Everybody who uses either symbol now knows what they stand for. Apple has chosen not to allow people to use its facilities to spread that message. You disagree. That’s what’s wonderful about living in a free society!

    1. The quarrel is not about Apple’s rights within it’s own house (the App Store). The individual device itself is the owner’s house. Ownership confers rights.

      The enforced exclusive bundling of the App Store is the source of the censorship.

      You can argue whether Apple has the right to censor, not that this isn’t indeed censorship. We can get into anti-trust and anti-competiveness issues, but MS was busted far worse for less.

      Regarding your points.

      1. Apple is not required to assist in disseminating the author’s speech, that is true. What Apple is doing, by disallowing internal channels is actively impeding the author’s speech. Big difference.

      2. That day may come where it’s a common carrier. One billion users and counting.

      3. Apple’s brand is Apple’s problem. Imposing censorship impacts the rights of both the author and the owner of the device. They have no issue selling phones to drug dealers do they… (nor should it be incumbent upon them to check).
      4. If there were alternate stores that sold such abominations as you suggest, then the individual user will have the right to buy from them or not. As long as it’s a legal publication poor taste cannot be legislated away. I for one, will choose not to buy from them.
      5. Clear free speech issue. Neither the swastika, nor Pepe are illegal. Distasteful to be certain. Just as legal as me pissing on a swastika…. or Pepe, but Pepe isn’t a Russian hoooker.

      1. For once, I agree with every point. 👍🏻

        Your futuristic musing about a billion user Apple pipe got me thinking. Add Facebook and others the political leanings of a few companies censoring voices they do not agree with is the equivalent of modern digital app and book burning …

          1. I added Facebook to mix, where in God’s name do you read I left them off the hook, exactly?

            The left’s reading comprehension and extrapolation never ceases to amaze me …

  7. Stoner goofball or alt-right hate symbol, Pepe the Frog is still a copyrighted character. Pepe is owned by Matt Furie, a cartoonist who has been overwhelmed by the alt-right’s misappropriation of his creation. Did Furie have anything to do with the game? Apparently not from the linked article. Seems to me Apple should have rejected it because it violated the owner’s copyright.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.