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.
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.
https://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-theat … 201327612/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know what the big deal was. The movie was stupid.
by Michael Collins4 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Free speech is alive and well in America. The Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 (dissenter was Samuel Alito) that Westboro Baptist Church has a constitutional right to picket military funerals. The church contends military...
by ptosis6 months ago
I'm sure there is a bot that can scour craigslist for this. I say it's total B.S. in order to delegitimize any peaceful public protest.Now this: http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/unde … bd07b.htmlSB...
by Austinstar2 years ago
As an online journalistic, free speech, and opinion piece media outlet, is HubPages in any kind of danger? Are individual hubbers at risk for posting certain opinion and religious pieces? What is HP doing to protect its...
by Lions Den Media5 years ago
Obama has used the Espionage Act, passed under Woodrow Wilson to shut down media opposition WWI, 6 times in 3 years, whilst it had been used 3 times since 1917, to target or shut down journalists that Obama targeted. In...
by Shadesbreath4 years ago
So, for those people who were arguing how "free speech" includes the "right" to "say whatever I want" no matter what the outcomes of your free speech are for other people (including getting...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.