Should films like The Interview be sanctioned? And now the Sony Hack

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'm definitely going to see the movie now. I might even like it; I've enjoyed about half of Rogen/Franco's work, which is more than most people I think.

[Fragile Bird]

I go back to what I said in the OP: Freedom of speech is a powerful freedom that needs to be supported, but is this just a really stupid idea?

I have no problem with people making comedies about North Korea, but this movie talks about assassinating someone who's a real person, and apparently the ending shows a successful and very bloody assassination. For laughs. That I think was pretty stupid.

Maybe Sony would like to develop a few more ideas. How about a comedy about a bumbling group of pro-life extremists who do a Google search for the name of the biggest abortion clinic in New York City, and then do some investigating to find the name of the top doctor at the clinic, real clinic, real doctor, and go off to NYC to assassinate him. All for a good cause!

Or the light-hearted buddy comedy about 4 British special forces soldiers who have a reunion five years after returning from Afghanistan and decide to cap their celebration by visiting Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary and beheading him.

How about a chuckle-a-minute thriller/comedy about two incompetent Americans who converted to Islam and went to Iraq to join ISIS, where their commander decides they will get to heaven much faster by going back to the USA, taking a White House tour, slitting the throat of Obama and raising the black flag of ISIS over the White House.

The list of possibilities is endless!

[sj4iy]

I go back to what I said in the OP: Freedom of speech is a powerful freedom that needs to be supported, but is this just a really stupid idea?

I have no problem with people making comedies about North Korea, but this movie talks about assassinating someone who's a real person, and apparently the ending shows a successful and very bloody assassination. For laughs. That I think was pretty stupid.

Maybe Sony would like to develop a few more ideas. How about a comedy about a bumbling group of pro-life extremists who do a Google search for the name of the biggest abortion clinic in New York City, and then do some investigating to find the name of the top doctor at the clinic, real clinic, real doctor, and go off to NYC to assassinate him. All for a good cause!

Or the light-hearted buddy comedy about 4 British special forces soldiers who have a reunion five years after returning from Afghanistan and decide to cap their celebration by visiting Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary and beheading him.

How about a chuckle-a-minute thriller/comedy about two incompetent Americans who converted to Islam and went to Iraq to join ISIS, where their commander decides they will get to heaven much faster by going back to the USA, taking a White House tour, slitting the throat of Obama and raising the black flag of ISIS over the White House.

The list of possibilities is endless!

Team America did the same thing to Kim Jong Il. Not really seeing the difference. Satire is satire.

[Rhom]

I go back to what I said in the OP: Freedom of speech is a powerful freedom that needs to be supported, but is this just a really stupid idea?

I have no problem with people making comedies about North Korea, but this movie talks about assassinating someone who's a real person, and apparently the ending shows a successful and very bloody assassination. For laughs. That I think was pretty stupid.

Maybe Sony would like to develop a few more ideas. How about a comedy about a bumbling group of pro-life extremists who do a Google search for the name of the biggest abortion clinic in New York City, and then do some investigating to find the name of the top doctor at the clinic, real clinic, real doctor, and go off to NYC to assassinate him. All for a good cause!

Or the light-hearted buddy comedy about 4 British special forces soldiers who have a reunion five years after returning from Afghanistan and decide to cap their celebration by visiting Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary and beheading him.

How about a chuckle-a-minute thriller/comedy about two incompetent Americans who converted to Islam and went to Iraq to join ISIS, where their commander decides they will get to heaven much faster by going back to the USA, taking a White House tour, slitting the throat of Obama and raising the black flag of ISIS over the White House.

The list of possibilities is endless!

Try "Death of a President" about the fictional assassination of George W. Bush.

This topic isn't new. Its just the latest and most public example.

[Mexal]

In the end, the US has freedom of speech. I oppose any censorship based on that alone. The ONLY reason theaters pulled it is that they don't want to be hit with lawsuits just in case anything WERE to happen...they aren't pulling it because there really IS a threat.

But still, I think censorship is wrong. Censoring anything is wrong. People should have the freedom to say and do what they wish as long as it does not impede on the lives of others. I would absolutely take a stand if the government were to start requiring movies be government-approved.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

They're also pulling it because they're afraid people won't come for the other Xmas movies. It's a business decision but it sets a terrible precedent.

[Fragile Bird]

How about a hilarious comedy (and I use comedy in each suggestion, because after all, The Interview is merely satire) about a bunch of Taliban followers who's wives and children and siblings had been killed by the Pakistan army going off to a boys' school in Pakistan and killing everyone in sight as revenge, done in the style of a Monty Python film with blood gushing from bodies full of bullet holes?

[sj4iy]

How about a hilarious comedy (and I use comedy in each suggestion, because after all, The Interview is merely satire) about a bunch of Taliban followers who's wives and children and siblings had been killed by the Pakistan army going off to a boys' school in Pakistan and killing everyone in sight as revenge, done in the style of a Monty Python film with blood gushing from bodies full of bullet holes?

I'm not really following your point here.

[Fragile Bird]

My point is I found the topic of The Interview to be off base. They could have easily done the same movie using an imaginary nation that everyone and his brother could identify as North Korea. Why would you make such an offensive movie about a country run by a pack of certifiable nutbars who have nuclear weapons?

Because you are sooooooooo interested in showing how you exercise your free speech? This is a country that sent spies to Japan and kidnapped citizens off the streets, brought them back to NK and kept them for 50 years. This is a country an easy flying distance from Sony's home nation, that could decide Tokyo needs some downtown redevelopment with the press of a button.

A long time ago the US Supreme Court talked about the fact your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. You can yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, as long as there's a fire a there, but if there isn't you have to be prepared to face the consequences. That's why you think about the way you use your freedom of speech. Sometimes you think that what you say is extremely important and the repercussions come as a surprise. I don't think Salman Rushdie really expected he'd have to hide for the rest of his life for writing the Satanic Verses. I wonder if Seth Rogen and James Franco are going to have to hide for a few years. I sure hope their movie was extremely important to them.

[Mexal]

Sony has pulled the release.

[Veltigar]

My God, this is a cultfilm in the making! All this fuzz for a movie that will probably be bad anyway.

[Sir Thursday]

I go back to what I said in the OP: Freedom of speech is a powerful freedom that needs to be supported, but is this just a really stupid idea?

I have no problem with people making comedies about North Korea, but this movie talks about assassinating someone who's a real person, and apparently the ending shows a successful and very bloody assassination. For laughs. That I think was pretty stupid.

Maybe Sony would like to develop a few more ideas. How about a comedy about a bumbling group of pro-life extremists who do a Google search for the name of the biggest abortion clinic in New York City, and then do some investigating to find the name of the top doctor at the clinic, real clinic, real doctor, and go off to NYC to assassinate him. All for a good cause!

Or the light-hearted buddy comedy about 4 British special forces soldiers who have a reunion five years after returning from Afghanistan and decide to cap their celebration by visiting Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary and beheading him.

How about a chuckle-a-minute thriller/comedy about two incompetent Americans who converted to Islam and went to Iraq to join ISIS, where their commander decides they will get to heaven much faster by going back to the USA, taking a White House tour, slitting the throat of Obama and raising the black flag of ISIS over the White House.

The list of possibilities is endless!

I take if you've never heard of Four Lions? It is possible to do good satire of these things.

ST

EDIT: Upon re-reading I see your point was more about the fact that the film was targeting a specific, real-life person. That's a fair point - sorry for the tone of the above which I will leave for posterity.

[Veltigar]

I take if you've never heard of Four Lions? It is possible to do good satire of these things.

ST

That was a really funny movie. Gutsy ending IIRC.

[sj4iy]

My point is I found the topic of The Interview to be off base. They could have easily done the same movie using an imaginary nation that everyone and his brother could identify as North Korea. Why would you make such an offensive movie about a country run by a pack of certifiable nutbars who have nuclear weapons?

Because you are sooooooooo interested in showing how you exercise your free speech? This is a country that sent spies to Japan and kidnapped citizens off the streets, brought them back to NK and kept them for 50 years. This is a country an easy flying distance from Sony's home nation, that could decide Tokyo needs some downtown redevelopment with the press of a button.

A long time ago the US Supreme Court talked about the fact your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. You can yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, as long as there's a fire a there, but if there isn't you have to be prepared to face the consequences. That's why you think about the way you use your freedom of speech. Sometimes you think that what you say is extremely important and the repercussions come as a surprise. I don't think Salman Rushdie really expected he'd have to hide for the rest of his life for writing the Satanic Verses. I wonder if Seth Rogen and James Franco are going to have to hide for a few years. I sure hope their movie was extremely important to them.

Strawman arguments.

Let me just repeat what I wrote earlier:

I am all for freedom of speech AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPEDE THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS.

That would INCLUDE yelling 'fire!' in a theater or making threats against others.

Satire is neither of those...and the best satire often uses touchy topics to make its point. Would you have demanded Jonathan Swift be censored because he proposed eating babies? Do you think South Park should be taken off the air for the numerous times they've 'killed off' real people (like Saddam Hussein)?

That's what satire DOES. That's the entire point of satire. And just because some people are acting ridiculous about it doesn't mean we should start stripping people of their freedom of speech.

[Fragile Bird]

No, I have not. I don't recall it being distributed here. It could have been, but not widely. I vaguely remember reading about it, but I think it may actually have been in a thread here.

But you know, in reading the Wikipedia article I see one jihadist kills himself tripping while carrying explosives, the four who are left dress up in silly costumes to act as mascots at the London Marathon, one loses his nerve and tries to alert the police and is murdered by his friend, his bomb blown up by mobile phone, another changes his mind and swallows his phone's Sim card and gets blown up when a passer by tries to save him as he's choking on the card, the third takes a kebab shop hostage and the fourth tries to talk him down but the police burst in, kill a hostage and the fellow blows up the shop, and the final 4th member, distraught, wanders into a Boots store and blows himself up. And one of the fellows misfired a rocket back in Pakistan and kills Osama Bin Laden. And the police sound like they are all grossly incompetent as well. (One wonders if perhaps the Boston Marathon bombers saw the film, and got inspired.)

That's a helluva a lot different than the CIA telling the interviewers to assassinate a nation's leader, and then ending the movie with a successful assassination.

[Mark Antony]

Gonna need to do a Team America re watch asap

Durka durka Mohammad jihad

[Arbor Gold]

That's a helluva a lot different than the CIA telling the interviewers to assassinate a nation's leader, and then ending the movie with a successful assassination.

As someone who has actually seen the movie, I can tell you that the successful assassination at the end is

pulled off by North Korean dissidents, not Rogen and Franco's characters. Franco decides not to kill Un and instead successfully discredits him on national tv by making him cry and exposing him as just a regular person and not a God-like ruler. Then all hell breaks loose and there is a military coup in which the regime is overturned and the hot North Korean chick that Rogen bangs rises to power. Sure, our Heroes do actually fire the weapon that blows up the helicopter, but it is a self defense situation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm so disappointed in Sony and these theater chains. This will only encourage hacks like this in the future.

I'm arguing on my facebook feed with my favorite Marxist college prof. who is condeming the film as being wrong because it is "incitement to assasination".

[Fragile Bird]

Strawman arguments.

Let me just repeat what I wrote earlier:

I am all for freedom of speech AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPEDE THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS.

That would INCLUDE yelling 'fire!' in a theater or making threats against others.

Satire is neither of those...and the best satire often uses touchy topics to make its point. Would you have demanded Jonathan Swift be censored because he proposed eating babies? Do you think South Park should be taken off the air for the numerous times they've 'killed off' real people (like Saddam Hussein)?

That's what satire DOES. That's the entire point of satire. And just because some people are acting ridiculous about it doesn't mean we should start stripping people of their freedom of speech.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I said you can yell fire in a theatre, but you have to understand the consequences of doing so. In my OP, I asked "I used the word sanctioned because I have not come up with a satisfactory word - allowed? censored? banned? criticized? tolerated? judged? Ignored for what it is?"

My personal opinion is that the filmmakers were stupid in the way they used their freedom of speech.

Jonathon Swift published everything he wrote under a pseudonym. Eventually everyone found out it was Swift who wrote the things he wrote, but Queen Anne was so disgusted with his writings she refused to give him the kind of cushy appointment he thought he deserved, and eventually he had to move back to Ireland to survive. And he "went mad", whatever that is supposed to mean, at the end of his life, and Gulliver's Travels were pointed to as evidence of his descent into madness. So he lived with the consequences of his writings. And his writings were about the political system he lived in, that affected him and Ireland. His satires weren't about the Germans or the Russians or the Chinese, who probably wouldn't have given a damn anyway, but probably neither would his readers if he wrote about Germany or Russia or China.

South Park is a cartoon, so the satire is probably a little easier to swallow, and they mock everyone and everything. Didn't the Mormon church try to sue them?

However, that does raise a question. Why didn't Rogen and Franco make a satire about a prominent US politician? Because they didn't want to alienate either the Democrats or the Republicans in their audience? It's not like there aren't lots of targets available.

[Fragile Bird]

I'm so disappointed in Sony and these theater chains. This will only encourage hacks like this in the future.

I'm arguing on my facebook feed with my favorite Marxist college prof. who is condeming the film as being wrong because it is "incitement to assasination".

Oh, Scot, what would happen if there was gunfire at one of the theatres? Who wants that potentially hanging over their head?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

Should the Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator" have been banned in the West for mocking sitting heads of State?

Gunfire??? So, any film where gunfire is threatened should now be pulled?