In response to Sony's decision to pull release of "The Interview"

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (10 posts)
  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image84
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years ago

    I say good for Goldberg and Rogen for making this happen. It highlights our cowardice in the face of a method that continues to prove successful everytime we bend. South Park did it a few years back with their Mohammad episode and Comedy Central eventually bending and blanking out the offending scene. Now here we are again. Our free speech being trampled just because somebody threatened us. If I, or if someone I loved, got caught up in a terrorist attack, I can honestly say I'd be proud. I'd be proud to give my life in that situation. Because the bullies were forced to make a move because we didn't bend. We decided freedom of thoughts and ideas is more important. Good for Rogen and Goldberg for being brave enough to go there. To use this very fertile terrain for comedy, the whole North Korea situation, and make fun of it like it needs to be made fun of. Kim Jung Un is just as delusional as his daddy, and has been convinced that he's somehow important. Why can't that be made fun of? He has weapons, an army, a country full of people who have been lied to all their lives and convinced that he's a god. And he's bat-shit delusional. That's a problem. One of the ways humanity deals with problems is through humor. That's how we do it. If we hope for the people of North Korea to ever know freedom like we know it, we need to be making fun of that guy. He's a joke. Everybody point and laugh.

    1. profile image0
      Stevennix2001posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I already made a forum thread discussing this exact same topic if you want to check it out here:

      Also, it seems like the cyber terrorists have already won because a lot of major movie chains are either delaying the film indefinitely, or they're outright refusing to carry it because they don't want to put their customers and employees in danger.  Here's the link to the deadline article that I found that's also posted in the thread I opened up earlier today. … 201327612/

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image84
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, right on. I'll check it out. I just posted this from the feed page, which is something I generally don't do. I just felt a need to get that thought out and that's where it went.

  2. Thief12 profile image90
    Thief12posted 9 years ago

    This isn't a free speech issue. It was a business decision made by a private company (Japanese company, by the way) after the threat of an unidentified group, and after other private companies (theater chains, etc.) decided not to show the film. It wasn't the governments decision to pull the plug on The Interview, which immediately makes it NOT a free speech issue, just like it wasn't North Korea the one who issued the threat. At the end of the day, it was all business.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image84
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree. It was one group using the threat of violence to dictate what can and cannot be said or portrayed to the masses through film. It was the content of the movie that was the issue. It's no different than if an authority figure here in the US came down on someone for saying something disparaging about the president. We are allowed to say whatever we wish. That is our right as Americans. A right that has been fought for to protect. A right we all have a duty to continue to fight for to protect. If we give in to threats and allow others to dictate what we can and cannot say, then we are relinquishing our rights to free speech. Like Benjamin Franklin once said, ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” The same holds true whether it be an individual or a corporation.

      1. Thief12 profile image90
        Thief12posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        It's very different to an authority figure coming down on someone. Like you said, we are "allowed" to say whatever we wish, but that still means we have to face the consequences of what we say. Free speech comes with responsibility over our words and actions. Same principle applies to Sony, as a company. They took a risk making the film and they had to face the consequences. Those consequences include reaping whatever benefits they would've gotten from the film showing, to having to deal with threats like this from anyone who considers the subject offensive or inflammatory.

        But it's far from a free speech issue. Again, it was a business decision by Sony, and by the theater chains that decided to pull the plug on the film. They made an inflammatory film, were threatened by a group, and chose to pull out. It was their decision, and not a violation of free speech, regardless of whether it was under threat of violence or not. If it was the US government "forcing" Sony, etc. to pull the plug on the film, then THAT would've been a free speech issue. That wasn't what happened.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image84
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          It doesn't matter that it wasn't the government. It's not that the constitution awards us these rights. The founders of the constitution merely recognized that we as individuals have certain inalienable rights. Rights that the constitution aims to protect. Yes, there can be and often are consequences for what you say, but it's still you're right to say them. The constitution protects our right to say them against anyone who would say otherwise. That's against ayone Including our own government.

          1. Thief12 profile image90
            Thief12posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            That hasn't changed. The constitution continues to protect those rights, and Sony had and still has the right to do whatever film they want.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image84
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              That's just it. Right there. Sony didn't want to just pan a movie that costs them millions of dollars to make with no chance of ever recouping the money they put into it. That is not what they wanted. They felt forced to do something they'd never do otherwise, because of the threats, to not release the movie. They were forced, or at least they felt forced, to do something they didn't want to do with their own film.

  3. brimancandy profile image77
    brimancandyposted 8 years ago

    I don't know what the big deal was. The movie was stupid.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)