News Why Was The Interview Christmas Release Cancelled?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interview
AI Thread Summary
Sony's cancellation of the Christmas release of "The Interview" was influenced by major theater chains opting not to screen the film due to perceived threats from North Korea. Critics expressed disappointment at the theater owners for yielding to these threats, arguing it undermines free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for future censorship. The discussion highlighted concerns about the credibility of the threats and the implications for corporate cybersecurity, with many pointing out that Sony's security measures were inadequate, leading to a significant hack that exposed sensitive data. There was speculation that the controversy surrounding the film could ultimately boost its popularity, similar to the "Rushdie effect," where attempts to suppress a work can increase public interest. The conversation also touched on broader themes of censorship, the role of corporate interests in artistic expression, and the potential for future attacks on free speech in the entertainment industry.
  • #101
Bystander said:
At any rate, what has struck me most over the past half century is the institutionalized erosion of individual freedom of expression through judicial, legislative, and executive mandates establishing a seemingly endless set of "tyrannies of minorities" denying Xmas decorations, religious symbols, flags, memorials, and other individual expressions, and further charging mandatory honoraria (taxpayer funding) for everything from public radio/broadcasting (which cannot compete on its own merits), through Mapplethorpe's trash, to fabricated festivals of imaginary cultural heritages. Half century ago, it was "live and let live." Today, it's "offend and be offended." Whatever the root cause, the first amendment and freedom of expression as written into the U.S. Constitution and extended to all citizens over a century and a half is no longer respected.
While that is at times a painful one for me too, I really don't see any logical wiggle room there. If a judge has to remove the 5,000 lb Ten Commandments sculputre from the courthouse rotunda because it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome in the courtroom, you have to remove the manger scene from the courthouse lawn as well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
nsaspook said:
Sending a DVD won't be very effective, we should carpet bomb North Korea with prime rib, each branded with a US flag.
Given that they'd also have to drop-in DVD players and probably even TVs for that to be successuful and the average North Korean's perspective on what matters is more basic, I definitely agree. It's the contrast of extraordinary luxury (to them) to the completely forgettably mundane (to us) that has the most crushing impact.
 
  • #103
russ_watters said:
While that is at times a painful one for me too, I really don't see any logical wiggle room there.
There's an asymmetric infringement of my rights built into the process that I've not put my finger on as yet, but it seems to be built around the phrase "I don't like it, so you can't."
 
  • #104
lisab said:
The way I interpret your example, freedom of speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot without consequences. You can speak freely, but you still have to take responsibility for what you say.
Bystander said:
There's an asymmetric infringement of my rights built into the process that I've not put my finger on as yet, but it seems to be built around the phrase "I don't like it, so you can't."
The problem is that it is only "you can't" on public property, so I find it difficult to argue against the exact symetry in the current implementation.
 
  • #105
I have some comments to make, or maybe its question. But before that, I should make clear that I'm not talking about US, I'm just talking about the concept of freedom of speech itself and only about the concept of freedom of speech as it applies to insulting others.
Imagine group A who has a thought a or does an action a and A thinks a is right or does a in such a way that it causes no problem for group B, who thinks a is wrong, and group C, who doesn't care whether a is wrong or right and doesn't think about it.
Now B simply insults A because of a or makes some comments about a which makes A sad. Now we have A asking why should B make me sad? What wrong did I do to B? Why is it that because I think a and B doesn't, I should be offended by B and we can't be friends?(Looking at it this way, we can ask the question why are we always talkin in terms of laws? I mean...come on...we're humans...there was a time we all were talking about humanity. Why here its only about laws? Why should we think because law let's me to make A sad, so its OK to make A sad? Why should we think about being kind to each other no matter what the laws say?)
Now B may say its because I want to inform some people from C that in my opinion a is wrong, so that they come to B too. But this is not an answer because we can ask why should group B expand? In fact the main question is what is the purpose of group B? Why should someone be a popularizer of the wrongness of an idea. This seems completely non-sense and crazy to me. This has no meaning. Why should B devote their life to something they consider to be wrong? Why shouldn't B be just like C and doesn't care about a and just finds something that they think is right and devote their life to that? My point is, this is foolishness to be a popularizer of wrongness of something. You should find out what is right in your idea and popularize that. Now this is how I interpret freedom of speech(And I don't mean it as a law, I mean as humanity and sanity imply):
Everyone is free to speak about what s\he thinks as right. The only times that s\he is free to talk about other's ideas, is either when an opposing idea is affecting ones life in a way that s\he doesn't like.
I mean, it will be a really crazy place where everyone is free to say anything s\he desires. Again I'm not talking about laws. Its really sad to me that no one here is talking about how a human should have control on his\her own actions and speeches. Looks like everyone here is thinking that people are free to do anything and say anything and sanity and humanity place no limitations on that. Then because of this, there should be some government to control this mess through laws.
But this reminds me of a flock of sheep that needs someone to control. Are you all assuming that human is just another kind of animal and a society is just another kind of flock which needs a shepherd? This really makes me...sad?...no, beyond that...that there is such a view on humans. But I can argue this is an inconsistent way of thinking about mankind. Because those shepherds are humans too and so how can you argue that those shepherds themselves don't need a shepherd? And if they need a shepherd, who is that? Another human? Why doesn't s\he need a shepherd? and so on and so fourth!
Anyway, I'm really sad now on this, because I really don't think man is just a little different from sheep!
 
  • #106
Why did this thread die after my post?
 
  • #107
Shyan said:
Why did this thread die after my post?
When you've summed it up as well as you have, there's not that much more the rest of us can add.
 

Similar threads

News Downing Street - New memos released
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
Was the Iraq War Justified by Its Outcomes?
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top