Apple Denies GOP Candidate's Bid for iPhone App

As you can see, not only are none of the statements defamatory, they are all factual.

By denying me this application Apple is now making an in kind contribution to Henry Waxman by denying his competitor a modern tool for political communication. They are stifling my right to free political speech and they are carrying water for the Obama administration -- perhaps out of fear, because Obama criticized Apple last week in his speech at the graduation ceremony.

It is also relevant to note that Apple pulled all of their advertising from the Fox News channel.

Clearly people who work at Apple are likely to be the kind of creative people that may tend to vote Democrat and hold liberal views, but this goes far beyond that. This experience with Apple clearly shows that there is a political agenda going on within the culture of the company and business decisions are subject to Apple’s political views.

If, as Apple claims, my statements about Henry Waxman are defamatory, it would be interesting to see what I-Phone apps Apple has approved for Democrats in which negative statements about Republicans are made and what standard Apple has held those statements to before approval. In the name of full disclosure, here is the legal definition of "defamation."


An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

Although defamation is primarily governed by state law, the First Amendment safeguards for freedom of speech and press limit state law. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964); Masson, 501 U.S. at 510. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (rejecting categorical exemption of all statements in form of opinion; statement that may imply verifiable assertion of fact is actionable).

To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.'94) (applying three-factor test as the starting point for analysis); Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.'90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961 (1991).

'[T]he First Amendment requires that the courts allow latitude for interpretation.' Partington, 56 F.3d at 1154 (quoting Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 202 (1994)).

The speaking slanderous words of a person so as to hurt his good fame.

In the United States, the remedy for defamation is by an action on the case, where the words are slanderous.

In England, besides the remedy by action, proceedings may be instituted in the ecclesiastical court for redress of the injury. The punishment for defamation, in this court, is payment of costs and penance enjoined at the discretion of the judge. When the slander has been privately uttered, the penance may be ordered to be performed in a private place; when publicly uttered, the sentence must be public, as in the church of the parish of the defamed party in time of divine service, and the defamer may be required publicly to pronounce that by such words, naming them as set forth in the sentence, he had defamed the plaintiff, and therefore, that he begs pardon, first of God, and then of the party defamed, for uttering such words.

Considering that I am trying to cause Henry Waxman to lose his employment and salary as a U.S. congressman, maybe my statements about him are defamatory. But if this is the case, does that not mean that all political discourse is? Does this mean that Apple thinks our political system is just too divisive and all would be right with the world if Republicans would just give up and stop running for office?