Group sues Apple demanding Telegram app be banned like Parler

A Washington nonprofit group, the Coalition for a Safer Web, sued Apple in federal court Sunday, demanding that it remove Telegram, a chat and social media app, from its app store for failing to crack down on “violent, extremist conversation.”

Craig Timberg, Reed Albergotti, and Gerrit De Vynck for The Washington Post:

[The Coalition for a Safer Web] complained about Telegram’s role in hosting white supremacist, neo-Nazi and other hateful content, and argued in the lawsuit that such content puts Telegram in violation of Apple’s terms of service for its app store. A similar suit is planned against Google, said the coalition’s lawyer, Keith Altman.

“Telegram stands out by itself as the superspreader [of hateful speech], even compared to Parler,” [the coalition’s president, Marc] Ginsberg said in an interview.

Ginsberg, who is Jewish, asserts in the suit that Telegram’s anti-Semitic content puts him in peril and that his ownership of an iPhone gives him standing to sue Apple in federal court to require that the company enforce its terms of service barring hate speech and incitement to violence on apps carried by the App Store.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California, alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation of the California business code, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and an injunction requiring Apple to remove Telegram from its app store.

Telegram, which says it operates from Dubai, was developed by Russian Internet entrepreneur Pavel Durov. The app is popular with people who want to keep their communications shielded from autocratic regimes and others seeking online privacy. Durov himself has clashed with the Russian government over censorship and encryption.

But Telegram also has a reputation for being the go-to app of terrorism and hate groups. For years, it was used by Islamic State militants to communicate and spread propaganda, until European police worked with Telegram to take down accounts associated with the group in 2019.

MacDailyNews Take: by SteveJack:

Welcome to the slippery slope, Apple.

If this keeps up, Apple’s own Messages app, end-to-end encrypted and baked into Apple’s operating systems (therefore not subject to App Store rules), could be subjected to similar lawsuits.

You’ll recall that Apple’s App Review Board wrote to the developers of Parler, in part:

Parler logo
Parler logo
We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app.

Parler has not upheld its commitment to moderate and remove harmful or dangerous content encouraging violence and illegal activity, and is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines… Specifically, we have continued to find direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action in violation of Guideline 1.1 – Safety – Objectionable Content

While there is no perfect system to prevent all dangerous or hateful user content, apps are required to have robust content moderation plans in place to proactively and effectively address these issues.

For these reasons, your app will be removed from the App Store until we receive an update that is compliant with the App Store Review Guidelines and you have demonstrated your ability to effectively moderate and filter the dangerous and harmful content on your service.

Again, Apple’s reasoning for pulling Parler is fine, if applied uniformly.

Beside the fact that Twitter, Facebook, etc. remain on the App Store, I see another issue: Using Apple’s stated reasoning to ban Parler, encryption should therefore be disabled from Apple’s iMessage system and a robust content moderation plan should be put in place or Apple’s Messages app should be removed from the platform.

On February 16, 2016, Apple CEO Tim Cook published “A Message to Our Customers” on in which he stated, in part:

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

…The U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone… make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control…

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge… In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable…

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

So, what’s more “dangerous and harmful,” a social network’s app, in this case Parler, that might at times publicly display “dangerous and objectionable content” or an app which is totally opaque like Apple’s Messages app using the end-to-end encrypted iMessage system where “dangerous and objectionable content” can be relayed at will in total secrecy?

Some might say “Oh, but it’s not the same thing! One is a social network where people follow one another and a dangerous message could be relayed to a large group of people, but the other one is just a messaging system!”

Yes, it’s true that Apple’s Messages limits group chat to a maximum number of 32 people. How could 32 people cause any damage? Well, for one example, nineteen hijackers carried out the September 11 attacks. Further, in Messages, information can easily be forwarded to others or copied and pasted into other group messages, making the capacity to send “dangerous and objectionable content” via Apple’s encrypted iMessage service virtually unlimited.

Would someone trafficking in “objectionable content” or planning “dangerous and harmful illegal activity” choose to use a public social network or would they use a completely private system explicitly designed to be impenetrable by anyone outside of the group?

It doesn’t matter what you call it. Any app that allows the passing of messages, Parler, Messages, or even apps with messaging attached like Words With Friends, Fitbit, or many thousands of others – if they don’t have a commitment to moderate and remove harmful or dangerous content encouraging violence and illegal activity, they are not in compliance with Apple’s App Store Review Guidelines.

The fact is that Apple’s Messages app lacks any measures whatsoever to address the same issues of which they accuse Parler of not adequately addressing. Apple’s Messages app is perfectly “inadequate to address dangerous and harmful content” or “illegal activity.” With the Messages app, Apple itself has not upheld any commitment to “moderate and remove harmful or dangerous content encouraging violence and illegal activity,” and, accordingly, is not in compliance with Apple’s own guidelines.

Clearly, with Messages and iMessage end-to-end encryption, there is no way at all to moderate content much less “find direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action,” but, it’s highly likely that such threats exist in violation of Apple’s guidelines.

Of course, Apple could claim that “hey, nobody knows for sure, it’s a black box, so Messages is technically A-OK,” but that’d be a weasel’s way out of this ill-constructed box that Apple’s concocted since Messages is obviously a much more effective tool for secretly transmitting “dangerous and harmful content” than is Parler or, for that matter, Twitter and Facebook et al.

Perhaps Apple own apps — baked right into their operating systems, no less — are exempted from complying with App Store Review Guidelines with which select other companies must comply or face expulsion? If so, surely competent antitrust investigators would find this example of self-favoritism interesting, if not evidentiary.

SteveJack is a long-time Macintosh user, web designer, multimedia producer, and contributor to the MacDailyNews Opinion section.

MacDailyNews Note: Today is Martin Luther King Day in the U.S. and the markets are closed. As usual on such trading holidays, we will have limited posting today.


  1. Tim Cook thinks he’s smart. He’s not.

    Yes, he figured out how to use cheap Chinese labor to save on component costs. Yes, he’s excellent at ordering parts and, of course, endlessly virtue-signaling.

    Otherwise, he’s not too bright.

    A smart lawyer, perhaps working for Epic Games, the U.S. DOJ, and/or U.S. State Attorneys General would sue Apple for baking a “dangerous” app into their operating system and leaving it untouched while they go after third-party developers’ social media and chat apps.

    1. And speaking of cheap chinese labor, Apple has been lobbying congress to water down a bill that (I’m paraphrasing from memory) would have imposed sanctions on China for in part, how China has been treating Muslims in their country.
      Wonder if we are going to see people protesting peacefully inside of Apple stores about this? As much as I am an apple fan, I would love to see this.

      And Twitter is still on Apples app store. Why is this a big deal? Because I’ve heard Twitter is still allowing the CCP to tweet on their site yet their treatment of Muslims in their country is bad.
      Wonder if twitter will remove the CCP from their site?

  2. It’s amazing to me that this needs to be pointed out to anyone, but there is an important distinction between private messaging apps and social media apps. Private messaging apps are, ahem, private. Social media apps are public bullhorns which must not be used for yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. Strange how some folks don’t understand the differences in the rules of private discourse versus those of the ‘public square’. Maybe this lack of understanding is disingenuous? Fake news even?

  3. Several years ago, when the issue of the use of iPhones to coordinate terrorist activity first came up, I suggested that society (and Apple) were facing a real task to balance privacy against public safety. The majority response here was to deny that secure communications posed any risk at all because the police had alternative means to protect us. The attack on the Capitol suggests that those means are not adequate. I said at the time that America needs to err on the side of privacy, but also needs to acknowledge that the threat to public safety is real, and not just hand-wringing overreaction to extremists (the focus was on Islamic extremists then, of course).

    Terrorism is still a real threat, and so is the assault on privacy. Apple is being attacked from both sides for failing to find a solution. At least it is trying, unlike those who would surrender privacy or those who would facilitate terror.

    1. The law should be the arbiter, not any company.
      I’ve been speaking of this slippery slope for over a decade, long before there was a derelict President* to worry about.

    1. Apple, of course, headed by an illogical leftist, only presents the fake leftist “infallibility” version.

      MLK was a highly flawed man. By numerous accounts, he “had engaged in so many extramarital affairs that his wife, Coretta Scott King, had reportedly become disillusioned with their marriage.”

      Supposedly, MLK was a “Reverend,” a Baptist minister. From the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Perhaps he missed that one. Serially.

      MLK was the Tiger Woods of civil rights activists – and I don’t mean that in a good way.

      As documented by major “progressive” newspapers as well as the institution that bestowed him with his doctorate, MLK plagiarized large sections of his doctoral thesis.

      Boston University has gone on record admitting the transgression; what’s more, the university knew of this at the time. Yet, they awarded him a doctorate anyway.

      Should somebody who cheated to gain academic distinction and gain the title “Dr.” be allowed, posthumously, to retain an assortment of honors?

      Meanwhile, other students in Ph.D. or Th.D programs exposed as having plagiarized large portions of their doctoral dissertations would expect to be expelled from their respective programs: No honors, no graduation, no doctorate, and deep dishonor. But, of course, they’d be mostly caucasian.

      Should somebody who cheated on his wife multiple times, really be honored as a “Reverend” or celebrated?

      The left can celebrate, and their lapdogs in the “mainstream” press can censor what they don’t like while spread leftist propaganda and yet, the facts remain.

      1. I was not aware that MLK day was all about academic integrity!
        Maybe he should have founded some “King University”, maybe that would have earned him your respect…

      2. Factchecker: great post that highlights that humanity…all humanity is flawed.

        King’s dalliances, while being a married flock-leader and even BU awarding a degree, while knowing of MLK’s palgerism, both highlight The Flaw.

        With that said, look what he left us with…incredible words that frame a long-standing cultural struggle so very well. Few disagree with the import of his words, but even today…maybe especially today with the Summer/Fall of Struggle so fresh, our flaws make embracing the words very challenging.

        Skin color is still very much a basis for value judgement…some in ways he spoke to directly and some he probably didn’t imagine.

        1. I agree with you.
          BUT why then are we cancelling out George Washington, Lincoln, etc…

          Human frailty is only acceptable if they want it to be.
          ie: is okay if you’re on our side otherwise -watch out!

          1. You went down the path of the Great Conflator…so, I’ll assert; highlighting one thought doesn’t necessarily insinuate another.

            G Wash, Lincoln, Grant, et al, should remain in their respected positions. Disappearing them is not an outflow of logic, nor benevolence.

            Sure to trigger some bedwetters here, disappearing General Lee is a travesty of history. I say this while despising white supremacy. Culture is training us to be overly apologetic about such things, so I’ll amend and add;

            disappearing General Lee is a travesty of history. I say this while despising white supremacy, bigotry, & sexism. I’m also sorry for the stress the Earth feels with my presence. As a human that lives on a plot once occupied by trees, uses fossils fuels, occasionally eats meat and could list many more deplorabilities, but hesitate to use the needed electricity…I’m at fault for almost everything.

            1. “I despise white supremacy but I MUST support white supremacists”
              Which is fine, if white supremacists is your thing, I mean.

              But, PSA, if white supremacists is your thing, then you’re the baddies.

    2. I doubt he should be on Apple’s homepage. He never would have passed Apple’s Blessed TOS!

  4. If is the site for coalitions for a safer web, then some of the people listed on their advisory board and team are somebody associated with the UN (whose leader was or still is a vp of , a CFR member (think funding by Rockefeller) and a VP of ABC news. This is all you need to know.

    Billionaires and much of the elite DON’T want us deplorables discussing current matters, sharing links, expressing opinions and theories. Why? Not because of creating crazy conspiracy theories, but because we might figure shit out that they don’t want us to know. Also, they want to advance their agenda, for example, solutions to fix the bad weather that climate change is causing. By us skeptics pointing out all the weaknesses and contradictions of their science and claims, this results in slowing down their goals and their investments not making money for them as they had planned.

    Other reasons for groups like this wanting to take down sites they don’t like:

    Money (for one). You can bet dollars to donuts that most of the MSM wants censorship (a VP of ABC news is in this organization!) simply because this will create more viewers/readers which means more $$$.

    It’s also a form of control and the billionaire and elite only want us to hear what they deem is ok for general consumption.

    Another factor is that Parlor for example, was becoming really big and you can bet people moving from twitter threatens the twitter and/or FB $business$ model. Seems as though there could be some kind of anti-trust violation here that maybe could result in some multi-billion dollar judgements in Parlor’s favor?

    I hope Apple doesn’t censor telegram and that parlor comes back with a vengeance and becomes as large or larger that that snowflake safe place known as twitter.

    1. “but because we might figure shit out that they don’t want us to know.”
      Why? Not because of creating crazy conspiracy theories, but we might figure out THE CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!! 🙂 In order for conservatives to figure anything out, they have to FIRST be capable of applying critical thinking against those with (R) behind their names or other conservatives. As long as you’re willing to ignore ANYTHING they do, there’s no “shit” to figure out, it is just “shit”.

      Apple can’t censor telegram because Apple’s not a government. Like, can we not agree that the “Freedom of Speech” applies to the government and not private entities? It’s right there in the Constitution.

      If conservatives don’t like the way the internet world is run, then THEY should found their OWN internet services where they can do and say whatever they like. Just be forewarned, Epik deplatformed 8chan, so, if things get too hot, they’ll deplatform Parler as well.

      “becomes as large or larger that that snowflake safe place known as twitter.”
      Not likely. It’s more likely that they’ll just split traffic between themselves and Gab, which is already a far right alternative to twitter (also hosted by Epik, see the pattern?). A place for conSnowflakes to gather and present wild conspiracy theories to each other freely and without persecution.

      1. “As long as you’re willing to ignore ANYTHING they do, there’s no “shit” to figure out, it is just “shit”.”

        No, there is shit going on, like the scam that there are more bad weather events because of a little extra plant food in the air.

        Here’s some more shit that they don’t want us to know (and I got lots more…):
        After ‘Republican” Bush got rid of Saddam, Iraqis ‘elected’ Jalal Talabani, who is a VP in (that’s right, we spent billions and sacrificed many American lives so that they could be run by a socialist?)
        I don’t know about you, but if I found out that we were going to invade a country over false claims of WMD, get lots of american soldiers maimed and killed, spend billions and billions, all for the result that a socialist would get ‘elected’, I’d say no effing way. Your take?

        “Apple can’t censor telegram because Apple’s not a government. ”

        If they block them because they don’t like their politics, that’s censorship in my book.
        From my Apple’s built in dictionary:
        CENSORSHIP: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

        And from
        Big tech and censorship <<<— LOOK: their words, not mine!

        “If conservatives don’t like the way the internet world is run, then THEY should found their OWN internet services where they can do and say whatever they like. ”

        MASSIVE FACEPALM!!!!!!!! Hello more intellectually superior left-winger, does “Parlor” ring a bell here?
        We were told to do that which led to the creation of Parlor. Wow…

        “A place for conSnowflakes to gather and present wild conspiracy theories to each other freely and without persecution.”
        Yeah, like the conspiracy that Russia “tampered with vote tallies on election day to help the president” 66% of dems believe…

        Opps, that is the wrong conspiracy, my bad. /sarc

        But here’s the link in case you want to read if for yourself, it’s not quite halfway down the page:

        The left wants us to listen to them and them only, I’ve been listening for around 3 and a half years about a steele dossier that turned out to be bull shit (i.e, fake news).
        They want us to believe twitter is fair, honest, and fact-checked even though they blocked the NYPost for two weeks because they published a story about Hunter’s laptop. Several stories came out in the MSM where ‘former intelligence officials’ by the dozens said there was nothing to it and/or it was probably the pesky Russians. Now we find out a few weeks ago, he’s been under investigation for about 2 years! More bull-shit fake news by the left that little flakies believe and don’t question.

        Remember the phrase “QUESTION AUTHORITY?”

        1. “that’s censorship in my book.”
          Well, I mean, you’ve shown a little of what’s in your book which is, essentially, “any crazy conspiracy I want to believe”. So, you’ll have to excuse me if I just, you know, go with the US Constitution. I mean, we ARE talking about the First Amendment to the Constitution, right?

          “does “Parlor” ring a bell here?”
          No, but Parler does… and they were running on Amazon and got yeeted. And, as I said elsewhere, Epik has deplatformed far-right speech previously, their TOS gives them the right to do so again. And I would imagine that AT THAT MOMENT Epik also becomes woven into your tapestry of conspiracy theories.

          Remember the phrase “QUESTION AUTHORITY?”
          Yes, and ultimately, you only question liberal authority. How about question QAnon? No, I’m pretty sure that’s too far outside your comfort zone. 🙂

          1. You didn’t answer or address kramer’s callouts.

            You’re doing what you accuse others of – ignoring the facts” that don’t work for your narrative.

            Why don’t you address his facts – and show they’re fake news?
            You can’t because he’s right.

            1. Yes, he’s “right”, right wing conspiracy enthusiast. 🙂

              Once you’ve gone that far, there’s no coming back until you start accepting some truths that don’t align with the narrative you’ve fed yourself for so long.

              If a TRUTH like -Free Speech in the First Amendment applies to the government and not private entities- is unacceptable, there’s no common ground to start from. Many non-conservatives think that “if you just talk to them, they’ll come around”.

              Nah, they have a convenient wall of conspiracies such that
              There’s a huge secret conspiracy that folks are slick and careful enough to have going on behind our backs without anyone knowing about it
              while simultaneously
              Letting a few people in on the “secret” so that you’ll follow them and buy whatever products they’re pushing on their podcasts TO SAVE YOURSELVES!

              My narrative is “stuff happens in the world” so, anything you say absolutely fits into that. However, that’s likely another “truth” that conspiracy theorists don’t agree with, because EVERYTHING absolutely MUST be connected in the most convoluted way possible.

          2. Zero Leverage,

            You are precisely the kind of person that the left doesn’t want engaging with conservatives. They’re afraid you’ll actually learn something. They want you to stay as ‘smart’ as you think you are. They have you in their elite/billionaire pockets.

            Love the Parlor typo correction, you bested me!

            Question qanon? C’mon man! I’ve never have spent a second reading any of that stuff and I don’t even know where to get it. And I don’t know if its true or not and don’t care. I do my own research and in fact, have a service that lets me search a whole bunch of old newpapers, magazines, etc. I spend lots of time researching them and searching who funds NGOs and groups that are pushing policy and check the backgrounds of the people involved, who they are linked with, etc. This IMO is what scares elites, controllers, and billionaires, people like me finding lots of dots on our own and maybe piecing them together into something that matters.

            1. Well, you know, if you’re interested in the TRUTH, it’s Parler, not Parlor. It kinnnnda shows how much emphasis you place on empirical truth with is, as expected, very little.

              “I do my own research and in fact, have a service that lets me search a whole bunch of old newpapers, magazines, etc.”
              You… you do your OWN research. I see. Which, essentially, is reading the results of OTHERS research (which may just be a summation of yet someone else’s work). Research that was performed by the same media that you distrust. Uh-hm. All your sources are records that provide you with the view THEY want you to see.

              And your big exposé is… elitist billionaires have lots of money and will try to make more money. That’s an idea I don’t think ANYONE has ever had before and thanks for sharing this little nugget that, I assure you, I’ve never heard before (I’ve heard it lots before).

              As long as you maintain that the only fake news is on the left, you’ll never have the FULL picture. It’s more likely that they don’t want ME talking to YOU you might start questioning the right and be able to put together ALL the dots instead of just the blue ones…..

  5. Traditional extremist violent behavior like invading innocent nations to kill folks and steal their stuff is just fine but when individuals want to communicate using extremist violent language with each other, hey, watch out; We’ll demand that you shut up or we’ll shut you down.
    The remedy to these extremist obsessions has to be civility in discourse and in foreign relations characterized by high-minded Socialist principles, justice, consideration, and a rejection of runaway Libertarianism which is simply inconsiderate, clannish self-absorption which, according to Wiki., got recharged by the smiling vindictiveness of Pres. Reagan after years of equitable and positive reform.

    1. Wasn’t it Mr. Lenin that said, “socialism is just the lower phase of communism used to facilitate true communist puerility which is its highest phase?”

      I guess those high-minded principles mentioned are redefined as Centralization morphs from the “civility” of socialism to the tyranny of the highest phase, Communism?

      Sounds great…let’s all jump on board. History that confirms the idea’s value…if just a few instances are forgotten.

    2. True, ” invading innocent nations to kill folks and steal their stuff.” is truly deplorable.

      Curiously, the same stealing is warranted when going into another’s wallet to take the gain from their efforts. You may do it with a smile, but you still are taking something you don’t own…but that’s ok?

      Do you believe in magic too, or have just adapted to internal contradictions of logic?

        1. You have absolutely no hesitancy thinking that another’s wealth should be fed into the public domain, under the guise of “fairness.” In this case, it’s someone else’s wallet.

          Figuratively speaking, that’s what happens when “fairness” is implemented in the political framework. Some become “reasonable” subjects that permits “fairness” to be unfair.

          You have often said, “no person should make that wage,” which somehow equates to taking something not rightfully yours. Taking without consent…especially w/o equitable terms, is a curious credo.

          Socialist? Yes. High-minded (as in admirable/respectable)? Hardly.

          Why not assert your standing per Lenin’s statement as it relates to your beholden political haven? You never seem to distance yourself from the leaders of your principles and it might be admirable–considering what happened under his purview?

  6. Why Not Twitter ? or Face Book .. They are packed with BLATANT Incitements of Violence?
    Double standards and hypocrisy out there are sickening! and worrisome, very !!!!

    1. I have greater plans for you….for welfare and good…from the State-ist perspective;

      “Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.”

      “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” Forget about a tool for your own protection, (2nd Amd)…you won’t even have a home for its storage.

      Private property is so 2020. Let us all anticipate the Great Reset. Hail to the State.

  7. Looks like Telegram took down hundreds of calls for violence. And, again, all anyone’s asking of Parler is that they make an effort. Though, they don’t have to, now.

    But, gotta say, when your microblogging service of choice has to reside on the same server as Stromfront… I mean… you’re the baddies. 🙂

      1. “Hey Parler, could you do something about the nazis and white supremacists on your site?”
        “NO, we’ll just go to where white supremacist and nazis are welcome!”
        “Umm, ok, if THAT’S what’s important to you… I guess.”

        If, as a business, you make a conscious choice to protect nazis and white supremacists, you’re the baddies.

  8. It you take someone’s right to free speech away,
    you are setting yourself up for the same.
    One day, when everything settles down you will be confronted by someone trying to convince you that you are wrong, and remembering you assisted in the banning of a individual for nothing more than his right to free speech. So anybody’s rights can be moved upon. extremist conversation? Really!!!
    So since I disagree with mostly what ( let’s call the the left ) the left have to say, I would probably be labeled a extremist, when in fact I am just exercising my rights, of course the constitution free speech is governmentally flexible.

    1. For about the umpteenth time, it is not taking somebody’s right to free speech away when you ask them to use another means to spread their message, rather than the means that you own. Racists in America have free speech even if black churches do not invite them into their pulpits. Anti-semites have free speech, even if synagogues do not offer them an op-ed column in the congregational newsletter. Developers of apps like Parler have free speech to criticize Apple for requiring them to distribute their product by some channel other than Apple’s App Store. Since such channels exist, nobody has taken any right they might possess. It would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment for the Government to require private parties to spread a message with which they disagree.

Reader Feedback

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