Stox, two points. 1) Why don't you take the time to acquaint yourself with the information surrounding the case I mentioned before speaking about it, or anti-trust suits on the whole. When you start running your mouth on topics you know nothing about, it makes your ignorance painfully obvious. It also makes you sound like as much of a zealot as New or Imad, who will twist any fact and tell any lie to back their side of an argument, though in their case, the argument generally must be pertaining to Israel or Islam. 2) If you think I was trying to claim the anti-trust suit was about forcing Microsoft to sell a product they didn't currently sell, you really need to check into a reading comprehension course. I used the Microsoft analogy to illustrate your Cartoon Network analogy was ill thought out and inapplicable, not to claim the feds did something analogous to forcing Cartoon Network to air pornography. Since you are having a hard time with applicable analogies, lets just take the actual issue at hand, and the argument you've already presented to its illogical and ridiculous conclusion. We both agree that Apple is the sole source provider of a hardware product called the Iphone, and the operating system that runs on it. If Apple were to block any content that displayed naked skin or used course language from being displayed on their Iphone browser application(safari), would you consider that censorship, or would that just be Apple deciding what the "service" they are providing is. The answer is obvious. How about when an American watches NBC and they decide to bleep out some course language from their after 10:00 pm programming that would otherwise be permitted by the FCC. Is that just NBC deciding what their service is, or are they censoring their content? If they aren't, what is the difference between them blocking those words and the FCC blocking those words? I'm not going to waste more time with you on this very basic principal. The fact you even tried to compare a generic hardware and software platform to a media outlet targeted at children tells me the absurdity you are willing to stoop to in an effort to prop up your idiotic claim.
you are getting confused obamanation, which is why your posts are increasing in length, you are finding it harder and harder to defend yourself. So ill ask you one question and see if you can grasp the simple concept. Is the fact that McDonalds don't provide hardcore porn censorship, or them deciding that that's not something they want to provide? If you want to claim that apple not providing porn is censorship you also have to claim McDonalds not providing it is too. can understand that you are probably one of these guys who feels compelled to carry around pictures of tits so he can creep off to a public toilet and knock one out, but apple not facilitating this isn't censorship, it's just apple not wanting to be some back street smut-monger.
Funny how you ask silly questions when you cant answer the ones put to you. Even on simple subjects, the words Ooga Booga are perhaps more apt than any logical argument.