Why Was The Interview Christmas Release Cancelled?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interview
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
106 replies · 10K views
russ_watters said:
Popular freedom of speech doesn't need protection because it is popular, so no one would try to oppress it! It is the unpopular freedom of speech that needs protection.
Had to read this a couple times before the eyebrows came back out of my hairline (that's about 8" above the back of my collar these days).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bystander said:
Had to read this a couple times before the eyebrows came back out of my hairline (that's about 8" above the back of my collar these days).

What do you find so "surprising/shocking" about Russ_Watters comment you quoted?I just finished watching it, pretty funny. It'll do well. And it is a movie with a message (imo), & is not just for "kicks" 'n giggles.
 
Last edited:
nitsuj said:
What do you find so "surprising/shocking" about Russ_Watters comment you quoted?
The first sentence and the emphasis/stress as placed by Russ provoked a bit of a "brain lock." It's not quite like the Libby's soup commercial from way back when (Libby the Kid is Billy the Kid spelled sideways), but it is somewhat "sideways" from Russ's Weltanschaung without the second sentence to give it a context.
 
Evo said:
People that have chosen to be in the public's eye are open to people making jokes, critiquing them, but not death threats or threats of bodily harm.
Thanks for the reply.
So can we make any kind of jokes, even the gross ones? Is it acceptable if I publish a video joking about sexual matters of the mayor of my city?
Apparently, a 2007 film about assassination of the US president was banned by two theater chains, which of course isn't same as Nation wise banning or national policy, but It does make me feel that the judgement in these things might be impaired by personal sentiments.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/U-S-Theaters-Ban-Death-Of-A-President-3578.html

russ_watters said:
No - why would it? Free is free. It means you can say whatever you want as long as there isn't a direct connection with an illegal action (like a real threat).

Yes, that's what freedom of expression is.
Yet we can't say personal insulting thing here in PF.

I think the concept of freedom of expression is to not let the one in power turn to a dictator by oppressing speech which are against him, or what he likes.
Why not put an exception that gross jokes, jokes that serves no purpose (other than humor), cannot be made about any person. Why do we need the right to mock someone? If we can put our points across by not resorting to personal insults in PF, why shouldn't be the same PF rule be possible in a national level?
Thanks.
 
wow it looked like it was going to be a good one too.
north korea is such a nerd. Its like they desperately want us to respect them but we never will because they take themselves too seriously.

I looked it up on youtube, it looks like theyre offering the movie for $5.99. I bet it will be pretty successful.
 
Bystander said:
Had to read this a couple times before the eyebrows came back out of my hairline (that's about 8" above the back of my collar these days).
Oops, that was poorly worded. Lemme try again: Popular speech doesn't need protection because it is popular, so no one would try to oppress it! It is the unpopular freedom of speech that needs protection.

Had an extra "freedom" in there that made it not make sense...
 
I_am_learning said:
Yet we can't say personal insulting thing here in PF.
Correct: PF is a private forum, so we can make our own rules.
If we can put our points across by not resorting to personal insults in PF, whyshouldn't be the same PF rule be possible in a national level?

Moderators. Who would you have making those decisions on a national level?
 
North Korea now has a movie review site. :oldtongue:

td141226.gif
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DivergentSpectrum
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't freedom of expression has the caveat that you shouldn't be mocking some particular person or a group or race of people?
Nope. That's one great thing about the United States. I have the right to offend you, you have the right to be offended, and vice versa.
Your broad caveat basically eliminates freedom of expression altogether. That's why we don't make exceptions for freedom of expression, because it's a slippery slope.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ellipsis and nitsuj
Q_Goest said:
I hardly ever watch movies, but I'm going to watch this one now just because.
You tell me. There has suddenly appeared a rain of links on where to get the movie. (I'm not going to watch it, my friends who went to the theater told me it was terrible) But for a while there, this sudden massive sharing of the movie after its temporary cancellation made me wonder why did this happen when in the beginning only a very few (almost nothing) were interested in the movie? I got the answer after googling for a while: The Streisand Effect.

[PLAIN]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect said:
The[/PLAIN] Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California inadvertently drew further public attention to it.

Something similar, but not exactly like the Cobra Effect:

[PLAIN]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect said:
The[/PLAIN] cobra effect occurs when an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahem. Sorry for the double, but I could not resist to share this awesome pic some awesome cyber-lurker artist made:

So tell me, Kim, why are you applying for our company?

Why should we hire you and not the previous candidate?

xmRNn9W.png

source
 
leroyjenkens said:
That's why we don't make exceptions for freedom of expression, because it's a slippery slope.
Actually we do make exceptions and prosecute some forms of speech.

As the law stands at present, therefore it appears that Schenck is still good law. Criminal attempts may be prosecuted even if carried out solely through expressive behavior, and a majority of the justices continue to view such prosecutions in the light of the majority opinion in Abrams: the Court will defer to legislative judgments, at least in national security matters, that some forms of political advocacy may be prosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subsequent_jurisprudence
 
Well my kids rented it last night...

It is terrible. Gross, coarse, repulsive and juvenile, "If you can't be good be raunchy"

Remarkably the plot had its redeeming qualities but they drowned it in vagina and rectum jokes.

The quality of production far outweighed the screenwriting. I felt sorry for the actresses involved.

that's my old fashioned opinion.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lisab, Evo, ellipsis and 2 others
russ_watters said:
Oops, that was poorly worded. Lemme try again: Popular speech doesn't need protection because it is popular, so no one would try to oppress it! It is the unpopular freedom of speech that needs protection.

Had an extra "freedom" in there that made it not make sense...
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion. If we look at what's the purpose of any of such regulation:
1) To have public more or less aware of what the group in power is doing to be able to demand corrective action.
2) To prevent politicians using such laws to try to silence each other.
3) Happiness gain for majority from silencing a minority should generally be lower than happiness loss for the silenced minority, so any such regulation should be used with cautions.

That's all. If you can achieve those 3 goals based on some other stating regulation, you are going to achieve similar advantages. (Maybe even without neo-nazi from other countries using US servers. ;) )
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
Czcibor said:
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion.
If it gives the appearance of "religion" to an outside observer, it may be that the principle itself has become secondary to the pursuit of that principle, or to the compulsion of maintaining the appearance of such pursuit. You've given us more to think about here than some of us are going to want to think about. I'll thank you and keep my mouth shut.
 
Bystander said:
If it gives the appearance of "religion" to an outside observer, it may be that the principle itself has become secondary to the pursuit of that principle, or to the compulsion of maintaining the appearance of such pursuit. You've given us more to think about here than some of us are going to want to think about. I'll thank you and keep my mouth shut.

I mean that some subjects are being treated as:
a) sacred value that can not be violated / officially violated;
b) open issue where you can freely weight pros and cons.

It sometimes make me wonder how those issues are being divided. It seems to be somewhat culture thing - like guns for US right wing are "a", while the rest of first world treat them as "b". Or my gov which (in theory, according to constitution from 1997) is not allowed to be interested in my religion / world view, while in nearby Germany I was required to declare that in order for their gov to collect from me church tax if applicable.
 
Czcibor said:
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion. If we look at what's the purpose of any of such regulation:
1) To have public more or less aware of what the group in power is doing to be able to demand corrective action.
2) To prevent politicians using such laws to try to silence each other.
3) Happiness gain for majority from silencing a minority should generally be lower than happiness loss for the silenced minority, so any such regulation should be used with cautions.

That's all. If you can achieve those 3 goals based on some other stating regulation, you are going to achieve similar advantages. (Maybe even without neo-nazi from other countries using US servers. ;) )
In the US, we don't allow #3 - we call it the "tyranny of the majority". The US is a country where individual rights are paramount (I believe other Western countries also claim it... though perhaps to a lesser degree) and besides, implementation of #3 requries a government judge of the merit of a message -- which may contradict #1 and #2. So while I recognize that other Western countries limit Nazi speech (for example), it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.

I do hope you see the irony though in comparing freedom to religious zealotry ;)
 
Last edited:
Cybersecurity Firm Identifies Six In Sony Hack — One A Former Company Insider (who was apparently let go in May).
http://news.yahoo.com/cybersecurity-firm-identifies-six-sony-hack-one-former-194123498.html

Norse, the cybersecurity firm that first identified a potential insider in the massive November hack of Sony Pictures, believes it’s uncovered evidence on six individuals primarily involved in the attack, including one former Sony employee with ”extensive knowledge of the company’s network and operations.”

Senior vice president at Norse Kurt Stammberger told the Security Ledger late Sunday the company has identified six people “with direct involvement in the hack,” two of whom are based in the U.S. along with one in Canada, Singapore and Thailand.

The list also includes a former decade-long Sony veteran who “worked in a technical role” and was laid off in May. Norse previously identified the ex-employee as “Lena,” and said she claimed to have connection to the “Guardians of Peace” hacker group . . . .
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/fbi-briefed-on-alternate-sony-hack-theory-113866.html
The FBI said Monday it is standing behind its assessment, adding that evidence doesn’t support any other explanations.

“The FBI has concluded the Government of North Korea is responsible for the theft and destruction of data on the network of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Attribution to North Korea is based on intelligence from the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community, DHS, foreign partners and the private sector,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “There is no credible information to indicate that any other individual is responsible for this cyber incident.”

The spokeswoman had no comment on further inquiries about the briefing and whether the FBI found Norse’s case convincing.
 
russ_watters said:
In the US, we don't allow #3 - we call it the "tyranny of the majority". The US is a country where individual rights are paramount (I believe other Western countries also claim it... though perhaps to a lesser degree) and besides, implementation of #3 requries a government judge of the merit of a message -- which may contradict #1 and #2. So while I recognize that other Western countries limit Nazi speech (for example),it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.

I do hope you see the irony though in comparing freedom to religious zealotry ;)

Yes, I know this belief. I also know that for example in press freedom index the USA did not get specially good grade (46th place; my country was on 19th), so I treat it more as expression of creed, not actually working policy.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

So for me - US variant of freedom of speech is... well, nothing special. And I both mean here nazi servers, while especially in spite of such "cost", failing at the intended purpose.

it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.
Contradict? Maybe you first assumed that infallible (or treated as such) good governance principles can be written as a short list of one sentence long general principles. (yes, by occasion you did that in the US constitution, other countries were learning from you, but learning also mean trying to be more precise and specific in their own constitution)

If I had to make such short list for sure I'd put "freedom of speech" or "Lex retro non agit" (lack of possibility of passing a law that would make a crime a prior action). However why should it mean that if I could make a longer list then not including lesser rules (like limiting possibility to change vote counting algorithm prior to election) not make some exceptions or boundaries for those already mentioned general rules? Or put additional rights to be protected that in effect would have to be weighted against prior rules thus de facto limit them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Russ
EDIT: When I thought about it, I think that instead of "freedom of speech", I'd rather suggest nowadays something like "right to information". It would turn a problem of producing for gov moneys articles that end up behind paywall or too long copyright protection... as an constitutional issue, while there would be no problem with laws concerning denial of Nazi (or communists) crimes.
 
Czcibor said:
Yes, I know this belief. I also know that for example in press freedom index the USA did not get specially good grade (46th place; my country was on 19th), so I treat it more as expression of creed, not actually working policy.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

So for me - US variant of freedom of speech is... well, nothing special. And I both mean here nazi servers, while especially in spite of such "cost", failing at the intended purpose.

Contradict? Maybe you first assumed that infallible (or treated as such) good governance principles can be written as a short list of one sentence long general principles. (yes, by occasion you did that in the US constitution, other countries were learning from you, but learning also mean trying to be more precise and specific in their own constitution)

If I had to make such short list for sure I'd put "freedom of speech" or "Lex retro non agit" (lack of possibility of passing a law that would make a crime a prior action). However why should it mean that if I could make a longer list then not including lesser rules (like limiting possibility to change vote counting algorithm prior to election) not make some exceptions or boundaries for those already mentioned general rules? Or put additional rights to be protected that in effect would have to be weighted against prior rules thus de facto limit them?
I would not accept the assertion of some Frenchman, Deloire, about how the US ranks in press freedom. Germany with its speech codes "ranks" higher? Please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
I would not accept the assertion of some Frenchman, Deloire, about how the US ranks in press freedom. Germany with its speech codes "ranks" higher? Please.

The questionnaire:
http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html

Some questions (my selection):
D.5 - Does the government monitor or threaten journalists?

D.9 - To what extent do radio and television stations with the largest audiences present independent and critical news?

On private networks - (Fox News? :D Curious how they measured that)

On public networks

D.11 - How concentrated is media power? (Italy must have lost plenty of points on that)

F.9 - Does the government monitor interent users who view independently produced online news content?
(And how to answer such question, without saying

(Anyway I'm not sure whether they included in the USA the problem of huge money being spent on political adds and to what extend that distorts media)

However I may agree that they may grade that according to local expectations. Any idea how to build a culture neutral grading mechanism?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Czcibor said:
The questionnaire:
http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html

Some questions (my selection):
D.5 - Does the government monitor or threaten journalists?

D.9 - To what extent do radio and television stations with the largest audiences present independent and critical news?

On private networks - (Fox News? :D Curious how they measured that)

On public networks

D.11 - How concentrated is media power? (Italy must have lost plenty of points on that)

F.9 - Does the government monitor interent users who view independently produced online news content?
(And how to answer such question, without saying

(Anyway I'm not sure whether they included in the USA the problem of huge money being spent on political adds and to what extend that distorts media)
Question D.5 may be about freedom, but the other questions make the point that the RSF is distracted by *content*, not freedom of the press. Other survey questions include the frequency of "insults" of all things. Even D.5 is suspicious, as I think from the discussion in the survey that RCF considers the case of an Army soldier (Manning) distributing military/state secrets the actions of a "journalist".

However I may agree that they may grade that according to local expectations. Any idea how to build a culture neutral grading mechanism?
Yes. Don't do it. For a metric on press freedom and freedom of speech, don't "grade" at all on content, but simply on whether or not the government steps into to stop or harass the press, or even directs what the press should say. Do that and that alone and I think the US would rank near the top of a free press survey, with other countries held back by their speech laws. That's a condition I think Monsieur Deloire could not abide.

On the other hand, if a metric on bias or accuracy is desired, judge content. There are many attempts in the literature, though the authors don't typically have the title of "Director General".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Had to go back and refresh my memory. The second OP that got merged into this thread was focused more on application of the first amendment to individuals,
I_am_learning said:
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't freedom of expression has the caveat that you shouldn't be mocking some particular person or a group or race of people? Or, it only applies to people/person within the country?
,
and the group/nation to which those individuals belong. Certainly journalists and media have to be included under that umbrella, but it appears to me that we're getting sidetracked into defending/discussing a group who can only with great difficulty be distinguished morally/ethically from lawyers, politicians, and other lower life forms.
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.
 
mheslep said:
Yes. Don't do it. For a metric on press freedom and freedom of speech, don't "grade" at all on content, but simply on whether or not the government steps into to stop or harass the press, or even directs what the press should say. Do that and that alone and I think the US would rank near the top of a free press survey, with other countries held back by their speech laws. That's a condition I think Monsieur Deloire could not abide.

On the other hand, if a metric on bias or accuracy is desired, judge content. There are many attempts in the literature, though the authors don't typically have the title of "Director General".

For example I would not be specially impressed by US standards, that in many cases I would be technically allowed by gov to say quite a lot, even though it would still in practice have career destroyed by moral panic already a while ago (cool to have a right that I would not dare to exercise anyway and most of sane people would behave accordingly). I would for example be more interested in more practical issue like some Polish celebrities / low rank politicians suing Polish newspapers in Amercian courts for libel because of officially their place of living in the USA, and unofficially a chance of getting unproportionally big compensation. Or mentioned problems with media concentration or with dangerously huge amount of money going through the system through political adds.