Comments on: Apple Censors the English Dictionary http://www.bitsbook.com/2009/08/apple-censors-the-english-dictionary/ Your Life, Liberty and Happiness After the Digital Explosion Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:18:52 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Nick Humez http://www.bitsbook.com/2009/08/apple-censors-the-english-dictionary/comment-page-1/#comment-1798 Nick Humez Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:45:20 +0000 http://www.bitsbook.com/?p=467#comment-1798 As a lexicographer I am troubled by the notion that Apple would offer as part of what one is paying for, a supposedly merchantable dictionary--that is, one that is suitable for the purpose for which it is offered, which in the case of a dictionary of the English language is implicitly as a comprehensive lexicon--without any explicit disclaimer that "this is a dictionary only of so-called "hard words" or "this is a dictionary censored so as to make it suitable for persons of tender years, and not a comprehensive lexicon." It seems to me that this is intellectually dishonest, apart from flouting the Uniform Commercial Code's merchantability stipulation as well. A candid disclaimer would of course make a great deal of difference here, though it would not address the question of those words which have both an innocuous and a "naughty" meaning. One cannot help wondering what has possessed Apple now to indulge such solicitude for the "innocence" of kids who have been able to go to any library and look up such words in the American Heritage Dictionary since 1976 (that is, since their PARENTS were children!) And one cannot help thinking that innocence and ignorance are being conflated here, and that what Apple is doing is fostering the latter in the misguided impression that it is somehow safeguarding the former. If so, how are the mighty fallen! As a lexicographer I am troubled by the notion that Apple would offer as part of what one is paying for, a supposedly merchantable dictionary–that is, one that is suitable for the purpose for which it is offered, which in the case of a dictionary of the English language is implicitly as a comprehensive lexicon–without any explicit disclaimer that “this is a dictionary only of so-called “hard words” or “this is a dictionary censored so as to make it suitable for persons of tender years, and not a comprehensive lexicon.” It seems to me that this is intellectually dishonest, apart from flouting the Uniform Commercial Code’s merchantability stipulation as well. A candid disclaimer would of course make a great deal of difference here, though it would not address the question of those words which have both an innocuous and a “naughty” meaning. One cannot help wondering what has possessed Apple now to indulge such solicitude for the “innocence” of kids who have been able to go to any library and look up such words in the American Heritage Dictionary since 1976 (that is, since their PARENTS were children!) And one cannot help thinking that innocence and ignorance are being conflated here, and that what Apple is doing is fostering the latter in the misguided impression that it is somehow safeguarding the former. If so, how are the mighty fallen!

]]> By: Harry Lewis http://www.bitsbook.com/2009/08/apple-censors-the-english-dictionary/comment-page-1/#comment-1793 Harry Lewis Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:24:44 +0000 http://www.bitsbook.com/?p=467#comment-1793 OK, it's what people want and Apple is tuning its product accordingly. So why on earth do people want Apple to take the dirty words out of the dictionary? What are we afraid of? We are normalizing the notion that words can hurt you and you should be protected from them. That's not a good thing. OK, it’s what people want and Apple is tuning its product accordingly. So why on earth do people want Apple to take the dirty words out of the dictionary? What are we afraid of? We are normalizing the notion that words can hurt you and you should be protected from them. That’s not a good thing.

]]> By: Sam I Am http://www.bitsbook.com/2009/08/apple-censors-the-english-dictionary/comment-page-1/#comment-1792 Sam I Am Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:22:18 +0000 http://www.bitsbook.com/?p=467#comment-1792 Oh Harry, for God's sake, get over yourself. 24 million people love that thing and Apple has every right to create a walled garden and you can choose to enter or not. The iPhone will have a shot at being the arbiter of public morality when it's illegal not to have one. It's guys like you who think a night club has no right to a dress code, or a theatre has no right to enforce a "cell phones off" policy. Jesus. Spare us. Oh Harry, for God’s sake, get over yourself. 24 million people love that thing and Apple has every right to create a walled garden and you can choose to enter or not. The iPhone will have a shot at being the arbiter of public morality when it’s illegal not to have one.

It’s guys like you who think a night club has no right to a dress code, or a theatre has no right to enforce a “cell phones off” policy. Jesus. Spare us.

]]>