The Interview

[Dennisch]

The FBI is now officially pointing fingers at North Korea. Let's see how much nothing will happen!

 

[Crispy]

So would it have been okay to pull the movie Mississippi Burning had the KKK pulled a stink and said they don't like the way they're being portrayed in the movie, threaten to burn down a few theaters? Hell lets censor the news! It paints glorious leader in a bad light!

I bet Al-Qaeda is kicking themselves now for not threatening to bomb theaters when Zero Dark Thirty was released...

So now we can just be pushed around willy nilly because people don't like the way we express our freedom? Hell is Little Big Kim even assassinated in The Interview? We don't know because we wont be able to watch it!

I still wonder if something so juicy was uncovered that GoP/NK/Putin-al-Kim used it as leverage for pulling the Interview.

We can't let other countries, or our own, dictate what we can and can't see. That is part of what being free is about. No country gets to mess with that.

 

[Famine]

So would it have been okay to pull the movie Mississippi Burning had the KKK pulled a stink and said they don't like the way they're being portrayed in the movie, threaten to burn down a few theaters? Hell lets censor the news! It paints glorious leader in a bad light!

Private companies can do whatever they like with regards to choosing to show or not show you what they've made.

It's not a censorship argument until the government (in this case the US government) gets involved in banning films and censoring your news.

 

[Swagger897]

It's not a censorship argument until the government (in this case the US government) gets involved in banning films and censoring your news.

They pretty much have already... I was on a cruise last spring and flipped to the Spanish CNN, where they were broadcasting the video of ISIS performing a firing line.. The whole thing too, everything was shown, nothing censored. Flipped to the English CNN, some guy in Abu Dhabi on a boat.

Not like they time everything together to coordinate, but I've never seen the full video of someone (in this case it was 30-50 men) being killed on a national/international news...

 

[Famine]

They pretty much have already... I was on a cruise last spring and flipped to the Spanish CNN, where they were broadcasting the video of ISIS performing a firing line.. The whole thing too, everything was shown, nothing censored. Flipped to the English CNN, some guy in Abu Dhabi on a boat.

Not like they time everything together to coordinate, but I've never seen the full video of someone (in this case it was 30-50 men) being killed on a national/international news...

For that to be the result of US government censorship, the US government needs to have censored it. The US arm of CNN - which I believe is a private company (TimeWarner) - taking a broadcasting decision not to show murders on televised news that the Spanish arm shows isn't US government censorship.

 

[Swagger897]

I could only guess because I've never had the thought to look into why one shows it and the other doesn't, but if what you're saying is true, than why doesn't TimeWarner/CNN actually censor it on both (or all if there are more) networks rather than just the one I see everyday at home?

 

[FoolKiller]

For that to be the result of US government censorship, the US government needs to have censored it. The US arm of CNN - which I believe is a private company (TimeWarner) - taking a broadcasting decision not to show murders on televised news that the Spanish arm shows isn't US government censorship.

What do you call it when the government doesn't ban something, but they do threaten to no longer allow the reporters access to individuals or press conferences?

The US government doesn't censor. They just very strongly discourage actions that may inadvertently damage the news agency from being able to properly compete in the current market.

 

[Famine]

I could only guess because I've never had the thought to look into why one shows it and the other doesn't, but if what you're saying is true, than why doesn't TimeWarner/CNN actually censor it on both (or all if there are more) networks rather than just the one I see everyday at home?

Because they're a private company - they cater to the audiences that pay them. If they put on things that shock people - like executions - into turning off, they don't get paid.

I guess they figure Spanish audiences don't mind murder with their breakfast coffee, but US viewers do. I don't know what the Spanish for "Won't someone please think of the children?" is...

What do you call it when the government doesn't ban something, but they do threaten to no longer allow the reporters access to individuals or press conferences?

Rude. But again, this isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue - Sony Pictures (and I believe some cinema chains - I haven't been paying attention) pulled the plug on The Interview, not Barack and Uncle Sam. If they'd have stepped in and said "You can't show this because it'll put people at risk", it's First Amendment time, but it's not them.

Besides, the US government doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Except the times it does.

 

[FoolKiller]

But again, this isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue - Sony Pictures (and I believe some cinema chains - I haven't been paying attention) pulled the plug on The Interview, not Barack and Uncle Sam. If they'd have stepped in and said "You can't show this because it'll put people at risk", it's First Amendment time, but it's not them.

Besides, the US government doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Except the times it does.

I'm not trying to indicate that this is censorship in this case. Just that there is a form of legal, backdoor censorship that does happen by the government.

I think in this case the censorship issue is the hackers are trying to censor Sony through their own brand of force. Of course, that's terrorism, not censorship.

 

[Famine]

I'm not trying to indicate that this is censorship in this case. Just that there is a form of legal, backdoor censorship that does happen by the government.

I'm sure - it's just that all the focus on this case has been on freedom of speech and censorship, and neither really apply to it.

Terrorism, data theft and a dollop of spinelessness, perhaps - assuming it's not an attempt at backing out of a turkey of a film, of course

 

[JMoney]

I understand Sony's position. It's likely the hackers were North Koreans, and you can't blame Sony for what they did. People should be angry at North Korea, not Sony.

The bigger picture shows that North Korea CAN influence the rest of the world without having to invade anyone. If there will be a World War III, it will be when the Norks finally do.

 

[Dotini]

The leading alternate theory is a disgruntled employee, according to a CNN talking head.

They repeatedly emphasize how easy it is to cast blame on convenient scapegoats. The movie could be a red herring.

I don't think the case is solved yet.

 

[FoolKiller]

I understand Sony's position. It's likely the hackers were North Koreans, and you can't blame Sony for what they did. People should be angry at North Korea, not Sony.

Should I also blame Al-Qeada for the Patriot Act and the TSA?

Sony and the cinema chains are getting blamed for backing down and giving credence to this kind of threatening. If you send a message that this tactic works then they will just do it the next time someone makes a movie they don't like. What happens when something like Exodus gets threats from Egyptian cultists or the next Christmas movie gets threatened by Islamic terrorists?

Sony has now allowed the entire entertainment industry to be a potential target of terroristic threatening.

 

[Dotini]

At the Fox news channel, the theory coming up fast on the inside is that the Chinese are behind it. Oh what a relief.

 

[Ken]

I couldn't help myself from laughing.

 

[Swagger897]

Should I also blame Al-Qeada for the Patriot Act and the TSA?

Al-Qeada - 3,000+ dead.
GoP - 0 dead.

Had America known that we were going to be under attack via suicide and deliberately plan to kill/harm people, you could be sure that all aircraft would've been grounded that day, before the incident happened. Firefighters would be at homes waiting before the fire begins to extinguish it, police would be at banks before robbery, and weatherman would actually give good weather reports..


But we don't live in that world, and to say something as you did when thousands of people actually did die is ridiculously childish.

It's also funny, (not 9/11) how you initially blame the US Government to try to prevent (though in some cases it has gone too far) a re-occurrence of 9/11, and then the next sentence start off with Sony, with absolutely no government affiliations at all as to how bills are passed..

Sony has now allowed the entire entertainment industry to be a potential target of terroristic threatening.

And Sony hasn't allowed anyone to take advantage of the entertainment industry, because they never controlled it in the first place. Paramount Pictures could have an incident tomorrow but still show the movie, but that's not why it was stopped...



Many act as if this is only about the movie when you seemingly forget to mention anything at all about the countless employee credentials which have been stolen. Every employee who has been stolen has the right to negotiate with the company compensation for having to provide such info, only to be stolen when it was thought at one point in time to be "secure"..


EDIT:

Great, now Obama says it was a bad idea... So, unless you think that the WH had anything to deal with the movie, spill it out now will you...

 

[FoolKiller]

Al-Qeada - 3,000+ dead.
GoP - 0 dead.

Who said GOP? I'm saying US government. And 0 dead is pure comedy.

Had America known that we were going to be under attack via suicide and deliberately plan to kill/harm people, you could be sure that all aircraft would've been grounded that day, before the incident happened. Firefighters would be at homes waiting before the fire begins to extinguish it, police would be at banks before robbery, and weatherman would actually give good weather reports.

But we don't live in that world, and to say something as you did when thousands of people actually did die is ridiculously childish.

I am making a comparison between threats of terrorism. And yes, I think the terrorists won the day the Patriot Act was enacted. We did what they wanted. Sony and the theaters did what they wanted here. If we negotiate, concede, or change our way of life out of fear we have lost, whether it is the government violating its citizens rights under the guise of security or lawyers at corporations crapping their suits to avoid liability.

It's also funny, (aside from 9/11) how you initially blame the US Government to try to prevent (though in some cases it has gone too far) a re-occurrence of 9/11, and then the next sentence start off with Sony, with absolutely no government affiliations at all as to how bills are passed..

Yeah, because keeping it on topic instead of going on a full political diatribe would have been better. It was a comparison. A person or entity's actions are their own and they are responsible. The government caved to fear. Sony caved to fear.

And Sony hasn't allowed anyone to take advantage of the entertainment industry, because they never controlled it in the first place. Paramount Pictures could have an incident tomorrow but still show the movie, but that's not why it was stopped...

Give the bully your lunch money and he'll try to take it every day. If Paramount Pictures gets a threat tomorrow it will likely be because a bunch of assholes were shown that it works yesterday.

Many act as if this is only about the movie when you seemingly forget to mention anything at all about the countless employee credentials which have been stolen

Yes, because the movie situation happened most recently. It is the progressing story. I feel bad for people that had their information hacked, but that is between them and Sony, and possibly the courts. No one can say or do anything to undo what was done there. I've not looked up anything that was said or read articles about it. I heard what happened and chose to ignore the stories where people's privacy got violated by hackers.

Hang on, let me sum up my thoughts pre-terroristic threatening: The hackers are dicks.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When did Rogen's right to expression come into conflict with that right to privacy? The unnamed third party broke their right to privacy by stealing the data and then holding it to ransom.

Surely the film-makers could have recognised that the film itself would not be received well by the North Koreans. Yes, TEAM AMERICA poked fun at Kim Jong-Il - but by that point, Jong-Il had been running the country for a long time and knew when and where to make a fuss. It's pretty clear that Jong-un is not his father, and given his immaturity and aggressive rhetoric, this kind of outcome was entirely predictable.

 

[Famine]

Surely the film-makers could have recognised that the film itself would not be received well by the North Koreans.

'kay. So what? Lots of films aren't received well by the people of whom they're making fun. That doesn't make the people who write or act in the films responsible for the a crime against their backers' employees!

Yes, TEAM AMERICA poked fun at Kim Jong-Il - but by that point, Jong-Il had been running the country for a long time and knew when and where to make a fuss.

Poked fun? They said he was being controlled by an alien cockroach and skewered him to death! Amongst his responses were a 'request' to the Czech Republic to ban the film (who knows why).

It's pretty clear that Jong-un is not his father, and given his immaturity and aggressive rhetoric, this kind of outcome was entirely predictable.

Aggressive rhetoric is the trading language of the Kims - I'm just surprised he hasn't conducted a nuclear test, like his father did whenever something wasn't to his liking in the West.

You can't be suggesting that Rogen's "right to expression" should have been curtailed because making films that might offend people could cause the offended people to then commit crimes against the employees of the film studio and threaten terrorist acts.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, I'm not. I am suggesting that someone somewhere in the production should have asked themselves "is pissing off a guy who walks around threatening people with nuclear weapons really such a good idea?". It's not a question of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It's a question of common sense. Hollywood can trumpet about those rights as much as they like, but someone else will pay the price for it - like the employees who had their personal data stolen.

 

[Dotini]

Artists have a responsibility to society. Altamont is an example of where it went a bit too far, with the Hell's Angels murdering people as Mick Jagger crooned Sympathy for the Devil.

 

[Famine]

No, I'm not. I am suggesting that someone somewhere in the production should have asked themselves "is pissing off a guy who walks around threatening people with nuclear weapons really such a good idea?". It's not a question of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It's a question of common sense. Hollywood can trumpet about those rights as much as they like, but someone else will pay the price for it - like the employees who had their personal data stolen.

As far as I can tell, the only people trumpeting about rights and freedom of expression are people who don't understand what's going on has nothing to do with rights and freedom of expression.

It just seems to be about a terrorist nation using terrorism to get its own way.

 

[Dotini]

As far as I can tell, the only people trumpeting about rights and freedom of expression are people who don't understand what's going on has nothing to do with rights and freedom of expression.

It just seems to be about a terrorist nation using terrorism to get its own way.

It might seem that way, but there may be more to it than we know. NK is likely only a catspaw for China, and Mr. Obama (not mention Sony) will want to tread carefully when the biggest of the cyberwar players is involved.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It just seems to be about a terrorist nation using terrorism to get its own way.

Which was an entirely forseeable outcome of making the film. THE INTERVIEW could have done what THE DICTATOR did and used a thinly-veiled allegory for Kim instead of Kim himself, and it would have made its point, preserved its creative integrity and avoided this mess. But no, it chose to represent a man with a documented history of instability and aggressive rhetoric, and everyone seems surprised that he was unhappy with the film. Was it a cyberterrorist attack? Yes. Does Kim have his feelings hurt justify it? Of course not. But the idea that the film-makers did nothing wrong and that Kim should just accept it and move on is based on the assumption that Kim is a rational human being, when he has repeatedly proven that he is not.

 

[Famine]

Which was an entirely forseeable outcome of making the film.

And which is not a reason to change a single thing about it.

Terrorists win by begetting terror. Once you start changing actions because you're terrified of the consequences from terrorists, you've given in to terror.

 

[Imari]

Terrorists win by begetting terror. Once you start changing actions because you're terrified of the consequences from terrorists, you've given in to terror.

Isn't that kind of how the police modify action, by making potential criminals modify their behaviour through fear of consequences?

There's a point where it's absolutely sensible to change your actions. Yeah, nobody likes that terrorists can push a whole bunch of people around, but there are better ways of dealing with the problem than egging them on to carry out their threats.

If you have someone who has threatened to run people down because he doesn't like crosswalks, you don't walk out onto the crosswalk in front of them. Sure, he's in the wrong and he'd get majorly reamed were he to actually run you down, but is it worth your life to put yourself in that position and get hit by a truck? Maybe to some people it is, but to me it's not.

I should note that there are also causes for which I and others would quite happily risk potential injury and death, because they're important. But I'm not sure that seeing a crap movie at the cinema is one of them.

 

[DK]

I'm just wondering...is it possible that Guardians of Peace could hack cinemas and steal the credit/debit card data of people who would have seen "The Interview"?

 

[Famine]

Isn't that kind of how the police modify action, by making potential criminals modify their behaviour through fear of consequences?

Sure, though I don't see what's potentially criminal about making a film*. This is more criminals modifying the behaviour of innocent people...

*Even one starring Seth Rogen.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm just wondering...is it possible that Guardians of Peace could hack cinemas and steal the credit/debit card data of people who would have seen "The Interview"?

It's possible if their network is big enough. Large scale hackers steal credit card information all the time from vendors like Home Depot, Target, and the like and sell the information. I don't see how hacking the five major theater chains would be any different.

 

[watermelon punch]

I wasn't interested in seeing it before, but after all these hackings, I'm more interested in seeing it.

This totally!
I hadn't even heard about the movie... until I found out today it wasn't going to be released.
(My life has been busy. *shrug*)

Now I'm considering sending a couple dollars to that outfit that wants to airdrop copies of it into North Korea via balloons.
(Apparently someone does that.)

Just because!

Especially after hearing that a North Korean expat raved about the impact of having seen a forbidden bootleg copy of "Titanic" while he was living in North Korea.

I can think of other moves that ought to be ballooned in though.