Don't try this at home.

The Apple App Store for iPhones has again become the centre of a media controversy, this time over an app entitled Baby Shaker, whose removal from sale highlights a number of issues at the heart of the censorship question. The Baby Shaker debate is of supreme relevance to gaming because the flow of arguments in both directions are in many ways directly analogous to those surrounding banned games. Substitute "shaking" for shooting, "baby" for "human being", and "iPhone app" for "video game", and you could be reading any article on the rights and wrongs of one portion of society's ability to impose its values and opinions on all others.

Baby Shaker depicts a reasonably life-like but static line sketch of a baby's face and upper body. Once started, a sound effect of a baby's cry begins to play, and does not stop until the user shakes the iPhone enough to "kill" the baby, whose death is represented solely by two large, red X characters over the baby's eyes. Baby Shaker was apparently pulled temporarily from the App Store, before being returned to sale and finally pulled again, seemingly for good; Apple's response to the situation, once it was brought to their attention, was laudably swift.

Prominent organisations for the prevention of infant shaking-related incidents have spoken out strongly against the app, describing it as "horrifying", and critics have added "deeply offensive" and "testing the limits of bad taste" to the list. There are a number of arguments that could be put forth in favour of Baby Shaker's removal from the App Store - the app might teach inappropriate behaviour, actively cause future incidents, or offend.

Baby Shaker presents users with a simulated problem - a crying baby - but only allows one solution: to shake the child until it dies. This is clearly not a correct piece of instruction, and if this content were presented seriously in a medical brochure or advertisement it would be utterly damnable of the creators to have projected any such suggestion. Is Baby Shaker actually sending this message - teaching users that shaking babies is correct behaviour? Media coverage of the furore has been quick to quote the app's introductory message, which reads:

"On a plane, on the bus, in a theater. Babies are everywhere you don't want them to be! They're always distracting you from preparing that big presentation at work with their incessant crying. Before Baby Shaker there was nothing you could do about it.

Now, Baby Shaker gives you a charming drawing of a baby sure to make those of less iron will fawn. True to life, it begins to annoy you immediately. See how long you can endure his or her adorable cries before you just have to find a way to quiet the baby down!"

But most accounts mysteriously omit the final line, clearly visible on the same screen:

"Never, never shake a baby."

The inclusion of this final note may be seen as a weak attempt to arse-cover, but regardless of its motivating factor, it is there, and clearly negates the app's supposed "shake babies" message. By its presence, in complete opposition to the rest of the application, it suggests what is obvious: that the app is a piece of humour - admittedly black, probably in poor taste - but humorous, none the less, and not meant to be taken seriously. It is stretching the limits of plausibility to suggest that Baby Shaker is a serious suggestion to shake children in order to stop them crying, just as it is ludicrous to suggest that, for example, one of Grand Theft Auto IV's comic sequences advises players that faking an alternate sexuality and using Internet dating is the best method of tracking down informants.

So Baby Shaker's "message" is probably not a good enough argument to warrant its ban; what about its potential to fuel further offenses? This argument is analogous to those against violent or sexual video games and films in general, in that is suggests some sort of causal link between the viewing of depictions of inappropriate behaviour, and the performance of inappropriate behaviour. The Sarah Jane Brain Foundation released a statement in which a link is drawn between the iPhone's core demographic of 15-25 year old men, apparently the group from which the majority of infant shaking offenses arise.

"This horrible iPhone app will undoubtedly be downloaded thousands of times by others in that same young male demographic - the population group that is already statistically the most likely to shake babies"

Making this connection explicit seems to suggest that this organisation, at least, believes there is indeed a causal effect between entertainment media (amongst which Baby Shaker must unfortunately be grouped alongside video games, books and films) and behaviour; a claim that is spurious at best, and which has come under criticism by scientists in a number of studies. Unless Baby Shaker can somehow force users to commit an action, logically it cannot be removed from sale on the grounds of potentially causing future incidents. The idea of a magical connection between art or media and reality is one that most peaceable proponents of first-person shooters or combat strategy games themselves find "horrifying" and "offensive".

Finally, the question of "offense" arises. Is Baby Shaker offensive? Sadly, we live in a world where both deliberate and unintentional physical abuse of children is a reality, and Baby Shaker is potentially highly offensive to individuals whose lives have been affected by it. It is understandable that many will recoil from Baby Shaker in horror, disgusted and saddened.

When we ask the question "is offensiveness a legitimate reason to bar a product from sale?", we're striking at the very heart of the censorship debate, and leading up to a whole range of other questions: Who has the right to decide what we have access to? How do we decide what counts as "offensive", when "offense" is such a subjective value? Is community reaction, or the will of the majority, a viable yardstick by which to measure appropriateness? These questions don't just apply to Baby Shaker, or even to applications and games in general; they apply to every form of media our society produces.

Do we react with our hearts, or our heads? My heart is telling me that Baby Shaker is an appallingly bad joke, deeply distressing to victims of the terrible tragedy the app treats so lightly, and not something I myself would ever purchase or tolerate in my presence - but my head tells me that censorship, like all questions of morality, must be settled with clear thought, not with knee-jerk reactions. Baby Shaker is not in itself inherently wrong, although it represents something that inarguably is; Baby Shaker in itself does not encourage or magically cause inappropriate behaviour, although its warnings could be clearer and more strongly worded. The banning of Baby Shaker is at one end of a slippery slope, and at the other is unbridled censorship based on media-fueled outrage.