The work is a a historical -- but completely fictional -- "exposé" on a secret Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

This book has historically been used to justify pogroms against jews throughout the centuries. It is widely quoted or used as a basis for TV shows in the Arab world. It has caused incredible hatred and destruction and suffering. It is historical in the same sense Hitler's Mein Kampf is historical. I don't think you will find Mein Kampf in the App Store.

Hrrmm. I don't see it being all that black and white. Hate literature is one thing, but fiction is fiction. Those who have a problem with you, regardless of race, creed or political views, will find (or create) anything to support their claims. This is a consequence of having a free speech society, and it's a slippery slope to start on. I think it more behooves those who feel that they may be slighted to be vocal and make their case for the reality of the situation, and to bring awareness of the realities to the public at large.

Here's an idea. A bookstore or library that does not censor, but leaves filter controls solely in the hands of the customer (or parent). We could call this "free speech" or "freedom of the press" - I think it would be a good idea. One might write it something like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

btw, this part needs some work:

Originally Posted by NewsPoster

Specifically, applications must be legal in the country [color=red]in which they is sold.[/color]

Read Umberto Eco's "The Prague Cemetery," for an equally fictional, but far more entertaining, story of the Protocols' origin. It does, however, contain a number of references to the earlier works of antisemitic vitriol form which the Protocols borrowed extensively.

Some countries, due to sad experience, have decided that free speech is not without limits. I believe US Supreme Court Justice O.W. Holmes had a similar opinion: Crying "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not a legitimate exercise of free speech.

"...As an example, the "Manhattan Declaration" application authored by an ultra-conservative Christian group was rejected by Apple content monitors (after public pressure over its initial approval), as the app would "expose a group to harm" and the intent of the app was to be "objectionable and potentially harmful to others."
--------
What a pile of bunk. It was not an "ultra-conservative Christian group," it was a cross-denominational evangelical group led by the late Charles Colson, formerly of Watergate fame. Radical gays mounted a overhyped publicity campaign against the signers of the Declaration, calling it hate speech. Read it for yourself and you will see that it's nothing of the sort: http://manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

I applaud Apple's decision to remove this offensive item from iTunes. Free speech does not protect hate speech. I support free speech, but you still don't have a right to make false accusations against Jews and use them to incite anger.