Sony Pictures Cyber Attack Over The Interview

[Hotdogs]

The 1st Amendment protects individuals from being prosecuted by the government for expression and speech. It does not protect individuals from the consequences of that speech, nor does it guarantee that the speech is heard, disseminated, etc. In this case, theater owners and ultimately Sony Pictures made a business decision. This has nothing to do with free speech or the 1st amendment. Lots of people seem to be confused by what the 1st amendment is and what freedom of speech means.

Now, to your point, one could argue that the USG has a duty to protect citizens, corporations, etc from these kinds of attacks/threats of reprisals... but it's not a free speech issue.

Nailed it.

You're right it's not a first amendment issue. It's a pussification of America issue.

 

[Spekkio]

...Now, to your point, one could argue that the USG has a duty to protect citizens, corporations, etc from these kinds of attacks/threats of reprisals... but it's not a free speech issue.

More like a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...' These threats, if realized, would generally infringe on the right to life. So yea, I would hope local law enforcement agencies would step up security in lieu of the threats.

You really can't see parallels to a movie being released and how North Koreans used to specifically target movie theaters? When was the last time Al Qaeda attacked a movie theatre?

Anyways, I don't think it was the right decision to pull the movie. It is, however, sheer ignorance to disregard the history of how much of a basket case nut job North Korea is.

I think that drawing parallels to what citizens did on (what recently was) their home soil 50-60 years ago and what they would do as immigrants across the Pacific is a little far of a stretch.

Besides, we don't need Al Qaeda to attack movie theaters. We have our own brand of crazy people who like to commit mass-murder in them for no apparent reason. I suppose that means that movie studios should stop producing comic book hero action movies?

 

[Beans]

Nailed it.

Won't disagree on that.

You're right it's not a first amendment issue. It's a pussification of America issue.

The irritating nature of that word aside, I disagree with you here. It's a money issue (along with nearly every other issue). Theaters, not studios, are legally accountable for the impacts. The liability was too much for the amount they stood to gain from hosting the movie. People will go to the theaters over the holidays, but the theaters don't care what they see. I bet Sony will release it later, once they can convince theaters to run it again, and probably just before the buzz dissipates.

 

[Hotdogs]

The irritating nature of that word aside, I disagree with you here. It's a money issue (along with nearly every other issue). Theaters, not studios, are legally accountable for the impacts. The liability was too much for the amount they stood to gain from hosting the movie. People will go to the theaters over the holidays, but the theaters don't care what they see. I bet Sony will release it later, once they can convince theaters to run it again, and probably just before the buzz dissipates.

...potentially or you could go the other way with it, as it's now entered instant cult status for movie buffs. Now exponentially raising profits. You know how much money they would make now if they decided to show it on July 4th? Probably could go either way.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Ooh, good fodder for a conspiracy theory here... Sony ENGINEERED the hack and the threats, Al Quitter was just capitalizing on an opportunity to threaten Americans. Then, Sony delays release for a few months letting it percolate in the media and... whammo! Profit.

I'd buy it. 'Meria.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Technically true. But that's kind of like saying that my hypothetically putting a gun to your head and robbing you didn't limit your ability to exercise your right to acquire and possess property.

Not even remotely the same thing, unless of course you are acting in the capacity of an agent of the government.

 

[nittany03]

Not even remotely the same thing, unless of course you are acting in the capacity of an agent of the government.

You're missing the point. I recognize that the legal purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government actions against people. That's why I said "technically true." But the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights do not exist because they are granted in the Bill of Rights; they exist because they are granted by God, or by one's existence as a human, depending on one's personal belief system. Just as the First Amendment prevents the government from stopping your exercise of free speech, so I have no right to try to do that either. I have no right to blackmail or extort silence from you. I can, of course, call you an idiot, say "I disagree," boycott your business, protest outside your store, and so forth in response to your speech. It may not be a First Amendment issue per se, but it is an issue concerning an unwarranted attempt to violate the rights enumerated in, though not granted by, the First Amendment.

Clear as mud?

 

[voodooqueen]

If nothing else, something along the lines of: “Rest easy folks, we got it covered.”

Or perhaps: “Yes, we can kick their ass: we have capabilities that they can’t even dream of [us having].”

It was more of a “rah! rah! rah!” and “are we going to take this sitting down?”, type question.

On a personal level: it would be amusing to hear that we have shut down their entire RF spectrum, Internet access (depriving Kim of his access to Internet porn) , and comm capability with 24/7 round the clock jamming from outside their airspace similar to how our B-52s always maintained a holding track over the Med during the cold war fully armed with nukes on airborne nuclear alert patrol just outside of Soviet airspace ready to push if the Doomaday scenario became real and order was ever given. I wouldn't expect that to be discussed on here: but it would serve them right and make me chuckle.

We can all mock him frequently. &

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

We can all mock him frequently. &

Touché!


But, it looks like he did lose his access to Internet porn just today.

And Borat is laughing at him from Kazakstan becasue he still has access to his...

 

[sevenhelmet]

It appears my publicity stunt theory was right:

http://fortune.com/2014/12/23/the-i...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Google started streaming it today at 1pm Eastern