Sony, The Interview, and the No-Win situation

Even if the Guardians of Peace, or GOP if you will (I'm going to enjoy calling them this), don't have boots on the ground to carry out an attack, I could see theater owners worrying that some other crazy person will use the threat to his or her advantage on their own.

Another thing to think about is who actually owns the movie theaters... don't know if this played into it all but AMC is Chinese-owned now. I could see a call coming in from Beijing to not show the film. If the commies can't defeat us with hard power, then they'll go after us with soft. That's what I would do!

The right's 'Interview' hypocrisy
(Dean Obeidallah, CNN opinion piece, 2014-12-19)

Not everyone will remember "Death of a President," the 2006 movie that included a controversial scene in which President George W. Bush was killed by a sniper. (I, on the other hand, can't forget it because my fiancé is an actress and had a big role in that movie).

Another thing I can't forget is the outrage that DOAP sparked among some conservative commentators, including some of those very same people who are now defending Sony's film "The Interview," about the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"Death of a President" won an award at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival and was slated to play in several theater chains in America. That is, until some on the right went ballistic over it.

I had totally forgotten about that.

Call me skeptical, but I just don't think NK has this kind of sophistication. And I am apparently not the only one.

http://marcrogers.org/2014/12/18/why...

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/evidenc...

Axon wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

Question: If Sony releases the movie despite the threat and ends up causing harm to some people, as the hackers promised, do all third parties that voice support for the release bear some of the moral burden? If Sony is made to repay the victims, are those third parties obligated to chip in?

No and No. The responsibility lies completely with those that commit the act. Full. Stop.

I'm sorry to do this, Thirteenth, but let me give you are real world example of your logic and it won't be pretty. The IRA planted a two small bombs in a bin in a supermarket (mall) in Warrington, Liverpool in 1993. Planting not one but two charges in a bin ensured that the bin acted like a grenade and shredded bodies surrounding it. The blast killed 2 people. A three year boy, who died at the scene, and a twelve year boy old you spent two painful days fighting for his life after receiving the full blast of the explosion. The IRA's statement was;

Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings.

And all that even ignores your logic that the IRA would not have been killing people if the British State just pulled out of Northern Ireland. What could have gone wrong? A well armed private army that was at this point conducting Proxy Bombings. I might very well be a hypocrite but I know for damn sure I'm not sharing the same moral logic as the IRA.

Are you ready for the surprise? I agree with part of the IRA's reasoning. I think you're dangerously close to doing the reverse of citing the authority here. By aligning my logic with that of a terrorist group, you're trying to undermine the persuasiveness of my argument by default. Let's not resort to that.

The responsibility does not "lie squarely at the door of these British Authorities" in this case, as the IRA likes to claim. IRA bears the brunt of the moral burden for the death and injury as the initiator of the incident, which is followed closely by the British government for refusing to comply.

You're thinking now, "but it's ridiculous for the British government to comply in the first place. Think of all the things they'd lose and the harm they'd do if they just pull out." I agree. It is ridiculous for the British government to comply. The death and injury suffered by the boys were necessary sacrifices for the greater good. The British government knew going in that incidents such as those were bound to occur; IRA has made good on its threats before. They made what most would agree was the better choice, but that doesn't absolve them of the harm they effected jointly with the IRA.

This is how moral burden works, Axon. It is duplicated, rather than divided, between all parties involved. You don't get to participate in difficult choices and come out with clean hands; one way or another you'll be covered in sh*t. Your only choice is to decide which option gets you covered in less sh*t.

I won't fault anyone for going one way or another on this issue. It's a hard choice between a particular instance of freedom of expression on the one hand and possible death and injury to innocent bystanders on another. I do care that if one chooses a side, that he be forward and honest about the moral burden he now bears. In other words, don't be a hypocrite.

If you support Sony's decision to pull the film, I expect you to understand that you've damaged the integrity of our freedom of expression. Your choice, along with that of Sony, threatens one of the foundational principles that make up America's identity, even if you think doing so will save lives. I expect you to do the same if you take the other side of the issue. Freedom of expression is clearly important to you, so I expect you to be prepared to make sacrifices to protect it. That means all the good stuff I mentioned in the last post, where you commit a personal stake in the outcome should the threat be fulfilled.

I guess the looming question here is how dearly do you value your 1st amendment rights, and are we as a country ok with allowing them to be infringed by threat of force by outsiders(or insiders if the hackers turn out to be)?
How much is your freedom worth?

I think your framing on that is a little wrong; it's not about me and my rights, it's more about the Sony execs and theirs. If I were making the decision, I'd try to get it into more theaters in response to a threat like that, not fewer, but it's not my call.

I do think, though, that giving in is a bad precedent, and it makes it more likely that threats will be deployed against the rest of us.

Thirteenth wrote:

If you support Sony's decision to pull the film, I expect you to understand that you've damaged the integrity of our freedom of expression. Your choice, along with that of Sony, threatens one of the foundational principles that make up America's identity, even if you think doing so will save lives. I expect you to do the same if you take the other side of the issue. Freedom of expression is clearly important to you, so I expect you to be prepared to make sacrifices to protect it. That means all the good stuff I mentioned in the last post, where you commit a personal stake in the outcome should the threat be fulfilled.

Bull. Sony are exercising their freedom of expression by choosing not to release the film. Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences of that expression.

The sacrifice you make to protect freedom of expression is accepting the listener's freedom to express a response.

Thirteenth wrote:

That's a perfectly fair point, although I don't think you're on the same page with some of Sony's loudest critics. So how would you characterize that "thing" that Sony supposedly desecrated with its actions, according to its critics?

I would simply refute their assertion. There's been no desecration of anything, except maybe good manners.

Jonman wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

If you support Sony's decision to pull the film, I expect you to understand that you've damaged the integrity of our freedom of expression. Your choice, along with that of Sony, threatens one of the foundational principles that make up America's identity, even if you think doing so will save lives. I expect you to do the same if you take the other side of the issue. Freedom of expression is clearly important to you, so I expect you to be prepared to make sacrifices to protect it. That means all the good stuff I mentioned in the last post, where you commit a personal stake in the outcome should the threat be fulfilled.

Bull. Sony are exercising their freedom of expression by choosing not to release the film. Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences of that expression.

The sacrifice you make to protect freedom of expression is accepting the listener's freedom to express a response.

That's a perfectly fair point, although I don't think you're on the same page with some of Sony's loudest critics. So how would you characterize that "thing" that Sony supposedly desecrated with its actions, according to its critics?

Jonman wrote:
Thirteenth wrote:

That's a perfectly fair point, although I don't think you're on the same page with some of Sony's loudest critics. So how would you characterize that "thing" that Sony supposedly desecrated with its actions, according to its critics?

I would simply refute their assertion. There's been no desecration of anything, except maybe good manners.

We're in complete agreement.

Obama promises "response" to North Korea

"They caused a lot of damage and we will respond proportionally and in a place and time we choose," he said.

He later followed up to add that he will at some point be presented with a selection of responses and will determine the one most appropriate to what happened.

Is it drones? It's usually drones.

"Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.

"That's not who we are; that's not what America is about."

Meanwhile, back in 2004....

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore said the Walt Disney Company has blocked distribution of his new film critical of U.S. President George W. Bush.

The film -- which links Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden -- is set to debut at the Cannes Film Festival in France later this month.

In a letter posted on his Web site Wednesday, Moore said, "Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11.'

"The reason? According to today's edition of The New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

I've got the perfect response. Flood their internet with porn. Porn starring ugly people.

George Clooney Explains Why Sony Stood Alone In North Korean Cyberterror Attack

Now, I say this is a situation we are going to have to come to terms with, a new paradigm and a new way of handling our business. Because this could happen to an electric company, a car company, a newsroom. It could happen to anybody.
Meanwhile, back in 2004....

That's not a very good parallel (either there, or the other mentioned instance of American conservatives wanting a movie silenced), because as far as I know, nobody in this country was issuing threats of violence.

Calling for a movie not to be shown is rather a lot different than threatening to blow up theaters that show it.

Mmm. Well the point is less about that, which I think everybody agrees is repugnant.

It's more about the whole "Sony should be ashamed for knuckling under" thing. That this is hardly the first time a studio has pulled a movie involving a scenario with the assassination of a sitting national leader. That it seems odd to expect businesses that have reacted to threats of picketing by pulling movies to instead ignore threats of mass violence.

Whoever is making these threats deserves much more criticism (and legal repercussions, if possible) than those who threatened picket lines.

But the studio doesn't deserve more criticism for their actions.

I would say they deserve a great deal more criticism for their actions.

Not the censorship part, but the epic failure of its information security that lead to this situation.

Al Jazeera[/url]]Judging by the company’s long history of lax security and embarrassing breaches (a 2011 hack of the PlayStation gaming network exposed 77 million user accounts), it’s far more likely the success of the attack had to do with Sony’s failure to mitigate the damage. In fact, despite previous hacks, the leaks contain evidence that Sony is storing the Social Security numbers and passwords of its employees on its servers unencrypted. Two former employees have already filed a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the company knew about the risks it took but nevertheless failed to reform its security policies. “Sony gambled, and its employees — past and current — lost,” they wrote in the suit.

Well, yeah, certainly they are utter failures on that front.

Malor wrote:
Meanwhile, back in 2004....

That's not a very good parallel (either there, or the other mentioned instance of American conservatives wanting a movie silenced), because as far as I know, nobody in this country was issuing threats of violence.

Calling for a movie not to be shown is rather a lot different than threatening to blow up theaters that show it.

Actually, I can think of a way in which the latest one is right in your wheelhouse, Malor. The latest one was about a movie being pulled because someone was issuing the threat of violence: state violence, in the sense of a governor pulling a tax break for personal reasons. Misuse of office, specifically using the taxing power to advance a personal agenda.

edit: thinking about it, wasn't there a controversy a couple years back about someone who was going to burn a holy book or something and everyone was like "don't, you moran!" or something?

pyxistyx wrote:

Obama promises "response" to North Korea

"They caused a lot of damage and we will respond proportionally and in a place and time we choose," he said.

He later followed up to add that he will at some point be presented with a selection of responses and will determine the one most appropriate to what happened.

Goddammit- if we go to war because of a Seth Rogan movie I'm leaving the country.

ruhk wrote:

Goddammit- if we go to war because of a Seth Rogan movie I'm leaving the country.

Putin has suddenly been acting chummy with North Korea. If World War III starts because of a Seth Rogan movie, I'm leaving the planet.

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

LarryC wrote:

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

One of the many reasons Third World nations are preferring to deal with China instead.

LarryC wrote:

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

The comedian is threatening to kill the head of state with a joke? You can't be serious.

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

One of the many reasons Third World nations are preferring to deal with China instead.

The other more glaring reason is that China has less of an issue with countries that pollute and have human rights issues (although that sounds ridiculous in light of certain recent events).

LarryC wrote:

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

I think most people are in agreement that it was in bad taste. Most, because I've seen some people passing around the trailer jingoistically.

Paleocon wrote:
LarryC wrote:

An American comedian making a bad joke in popular media about the assassination or killing of the heads of sovereign states isn't funny when Americans keep doing it all the damn time. At that point, it's less of a joke and more of a thinly veiled threat.

One of the many reasons Third World nations are preferring to deal with China instead.

Nice to see that our Canadian plant Seth Rogen is succeeding in undermining American trade with his brand of cheap humor.

As for people finding this movie repulsive I'm kinda surprised. Its a bad movie. Its hollywoods forte. James Franco and Seth Rogen wouldn't be making another movie together if the last 2 didn't gross over 100m. People keep telling him hes funny with their wallets and he keeps making anal jokes.

But yea he is the worst person ever.

I will probably go see this, but I suspect it will be just as bad as The Dictator.

I find the idea of the movie repulsive.

An ongoing timeline/summary of the security breach, with commentary by a security expert:
https://www.riskbasedsecurity.com/20...

RolandofGilead wrote:

I find the idea of the movie repulsive.

Really? Is it any worse of an idea than In the Line of Fire or any other movie about the assassination of a US president?

The butt of the joke of the movie isn't NK. It is the CIA for attempting to hire idiots to assassinate a head of state. Now, I'm not saying it is a good movie, but there have been tons of movies about the murder of heads of nations. This is nothing new.

Nevin73 wrote:
RolandofGilead wrote:

I find the idea of the movie repulsive.

Really? Is it any worse of an idea than In the Line of Fire or any other movie about the assassination of a US president?

The butt of the joke of the movie isn't NK. It is the CIA for attempting to hire idiots to assassinate a head of state. Now, I'm not saying it is a good movie, but there have been tons of movies about the murder of heads of nations. This is nothing new.

There's a difference though. Or at least, I believe there's a difference based on what I've seen (trailer, leaked ending, etc.). And this is the difference between your example and The Interview:

In In The Line of Fire, the tone is serious, and shines a light of lunacy on the murderer, NOT the target. The target's rendition isn't even important to the narrative.

In The Interview, from what I've seen so far, the tone is satirical borderline disrespectful, and indeed shines a light of lunacy to the target.

I believe that's a valid difference in the argument being made. Having that said, I don't find the idea repulsive, I just find it incredibly stupid.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I find the idea of the movie repulsive.