PtiKim 1, Obama 0

[touchring]

Sony canceled a film because supporters of North Korea threaten terrorism on people who watch the movie.

This sounds like a commercial decision but actually has great impact on the image of the USA.

Sony doesn't trust Obama to protect Americans even on American soil.

[Streaky]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

Sony canceled a film because supporters of North Korea threaten terrorism on people who watch the movie.

This sounds like a commercial decision but actually has great impact on the image of the USA.

Sony doesn't trust Obama to protect Americans even on American soil.

If Sony, a computer and software developer, cannot secure its own servers from a corporate-wide hack (again) that steals not only unreleased films, but emails and the SS#s of employees, it can't guarantee the safety of its audience (customers). Sony did the wise thing by canceling exhibitions of this film. It almost makes up for indulging the atrociously bad taste of its star by financing the thing in the first place. But, not quite.

In this extremely rare instance, street justice was served and the trench-level taste of Seth Rogan set off a Karma Bomb that has crippled Sony. Rogan: the Anti-Clooney.

Rogan was paid like 6000G's for this.

Was Obama mentioned ever in any of this but by you?

[DSpencer]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

If Sony, a computer and software developer, cannot secure its own servers from a corporate-wide hack (again) that steals not only unreleased films, but emails and the SS#s of employees, it can't guarantee the safety of its audience (customers). Sony did the wise thing by canceling exhibitions of this film. It almost makes up for indulging the atrociously bad taste of its star by financing the thing in the first place. But, not quite.

In this extremely rare instance, street justice was served and the trench-level taste of Seth Rogan set off a Karma Bomb that has crippled Sony. Rogan: the Anti-Clooney.

Rogan was paid like 6000G's for this.

Was Obama mentioned ever in any of this but by you?

Of course Sony can't guarantee the safety of every American who sees a movie, but who would expect that? I also don't think it's fair to blame Obama, but at least he is supposed to have a role in national security as opposed to a Japanese corporation.

Maybe I'm misreading your tone in print, but you sound sympathetic to the hackers. Like somehow it's justified for Sony to be punished for making a movie you thought was in poor taste. The lives of millions of Americans were threatened and our movie choices are now censored by North Korea (apparently). I find that extremely disturbing.

[Ghent12]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

If Sony, a computer and software developer, cannot secure its own servers from a corporate-wide hack (again) that steals not only unreleased films, but emails and the SS#s of employees, it can't guarantee the safety of its audience (customers). Sony did the wise thing by canceling exhibitions of this film. It almost makes up for indulging the atrociously bad taste of its star by financing the thing in the first place. But, not quite.

In this extremely rare instance, street justice was served and the trench-level taste of Seth Rogan set off a Karma Bomb that has crippled Sony. Rogan: the Anti-Clooney.

Rogan was paid like 6000G's for this.

Was Obama mentioned ever in any of this but by you?

Sony made the wrong decision, even if it made economic sense to them. Safety of viewers is not the purview of the movie studio except with regards to how a movie might actually affect health and safety (i.e. epilepsy). This is an unbelievably bad precedent and this can of worms must be destroyed right the hell now in the strongest possible terms.

[jiimbergin]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

Sony made the wrong decision, even if it made economic sense to them. Safety of viewers is not the purview of the movie studio except with regards to how a movie might actually affect health and safety (i.e. epilepsy). This is an unbelievably bad precedent and this can of worms must be destroyed right the hell now in the strongest possible terms.

+1

[astonas]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

Sony made the wrong decision, even if it made economic sense to them. Safety of viewers is not the purview of the movie studio except with regards to how a movie might actually affect health and safety (i.e. epilepsy). This is an unbelievably bad precedent and this can of worms must be destroyed right the hell now in the strongest possible terms.

I'm hardly an insider on this, but according to this interview, Sony didn't actually pull the movie until after all the distributers balked at showing it.

If every theater is legally liable for terrorism resulting from showing a film that has received a credible threat, then there's a much bigger problem here than a single studio.

[metalman]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

I'm hardly an insider on this, but according to this interview, Sony didn't actually pull the movie until after all the distributers balked at showing it.

If every theater is legally liable for terrorism resulting from showing a film that has received a credible threat, then there's a much bigger problem here than a single studio.

Obama: Sony 'did the wrong thing' when it pulled movie

WASHINGTON – Sony did the wrong thing when it backed down and pulled The Interview in the face of North Korean hacker threats, President Obama said at his new conference Friday.


"I wish they had spoken to me first," he said. "I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks."


CNN began airing excerpts of the interview Friday. In it, Lynton disputed Obama's assertion that they didn't talk with him. "We definitely spoke to a senior advisor in the White House to talk about the situation," he said.


Obama said he was sympathetic to the damage and threats Sony has dealt with. " "Having said all that, yes I think they made a mistake," Obama said.


"We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States," he said. "Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don't like or news reports that they don't like."


Even worse, Obama said, "imagine if producers and distributors and others started engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended."


"That's not who we are. That's not what America's about," he said.


The United States will act on the cyberattack, but Obama did not go into detail about how. "We will respond, we will respond proportionally, and in a place and time that we choose. It's not something that I will announce here today at this press conference," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...-gop/20635449/

[Raz]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

...

Even worse, Obama said, "imagineif producers and distributors and others started engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended." ...

It's already happening. None of them will speak out or cover the "hate crimes" of blacks attacking whites.
Neither will they publish or show cartoons or videos that might offend the practitioners of the "religion of peace".

But in all fairness they are busy enough smearing Christians as being one big mass of ignorant, "homophobic" retards.

[vt]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

You don't see any media reports on this either:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jos...anti-semitism/

It's not alright to offend North Korea or radical Islamists, but whites, Jews and Christians are fair game.

[metalman]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

You don't see any media reports on this either:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jos...anti-semitism/

It's not alright to offend North Korea or radical Islamists, but whites, Jews and Christians are fair game.

with respect i wish itulip to return to the old rules... economics only... else all goes into post haste into the political abyss... as goes the world.

[Raz]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

with respect i wish itulip to return to the old rules... economics only... else all goes into post haste into the political abyss... as goes the world.

With respect - I didn't start this thread. With respect - what else is Rant and Rave for?

And with respect, your reply illustrates the very point I made.

[metalman]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

With respect - I didn't start this thread. With respect - what else is Rant and Rave for?

And with respect, your reply illustrates the very point I made.

peace... but... this is the last no tan echo chamber on the entire friggin 'net i know of where minds from all walks meet outside the framework... sans manufactured idolatry & ideology... to discuss in public at this level... events... people...

others i've followed have gone all private as niche left/right/conservative/liberal/love cats/love dogs/etc/etc/etc/ sites

what about a site for the curious & open minded with respect for each other & history???

ah, never mind. that'll never work.

[sutro]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

with respect i wish itulip to return to the old rules... economics only... else all goes into post haste into the political abyss... as goes the world.

Abyss rules, "Political arguments that have gone on for 100 years without resolution and will not likely be resolved here". Seems like this North Korean threat and the response is quite unprecedented. The movie folks were concerned that all venues could be impacted, not just ones showing the "offensive" material. That would end up in a lot of lost dollars for the brick and morter movie people. I guess the interesting pure econ question would be, would Netflix pickup the slack?

[touchring]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

"I wish they had spoken to me first," he said. "I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks."

CNN began airing excerpts of the interview Friday. In it, Lynton disputed Obama's assertion that they didn't talk with him. "We definitely spoke to a senior advisor in the White House to talk about the situation," he said.

What's the use of spending half a trillion on military defense when you can't even show a comedy movie (however bad taste) in your own country?

The money could be put into better use in healthcare, education and cyber-defense.

[astonas]

Re: PtiKim 1, Obama 0

It's already happening. None of them will speak out or cover the "hate crimes" of blacks attacking whites.
Neither will they publish or show cartoons or videos that might offend the practitioners of the "religion of peace".

But in all fairness they are busy enough smearing Christians as being one big mass of ignorant, "homophobic" retards.

This is mixing two entirely separate issues, which can only be properly treated as qualitatively different:

1) self-censorship because of the fear of a violent attack that will take lives. (Not publishing a film because of direct foreign threat of violence in theaters, not publishing cartoons because of death-threats in fatwas, etc.) This is self-censorship due to fear of extinction.

2) self-censorship because of a desire not to offend people's sensibilities (race relations discussions, questioning theological precepts of a dominant religion) This is self-censorship in the name of civility.

I don't usually increase my respect much for those who are entirely silenced by either form of self-censorship. To be silent in the first category is to lack the courage of one's convictions, and to be silent in the second diminishes honest discussion. There is usually a way -- if all parties truly seek it -- to have a polite, but still honest, discussion on any topic.

So I do think the first category of self-censorship deserves to be struggled against with great force, on a national level - it permits unaccountable foreign agents to restrict domestic constitutional freedoms. I suspect we all agree on this.

The second category, however, is not at all about reacting to a justified fear for one's person, but about making a choice to be civil with one another, however that is defined. It might require including in the discussion itself some back-and-forth over valid terms, but that is overhead, not existential fear. And if we can't keep a discussion civil, then perhaps we are not the ones who should be conducting it in a public forum.

To seek a polite conversation on a subject known to be inflammatory, one really does have to compensate with extra courtesy. The use of unnecessarily inflammatory language (emotional beyond the level needed to make one's logical position clear) in this second case isn't a bold action against cowardice. It is merely another way to ensure that a potentially interesting conversation will be steered into unproductive vitriol.

If that is all we are going to get next, then metalman is entirely right, there really isn't a valid reason to have the discussion at all. It'll just be a lot of pointless shouting. And no, saying that isn't censorship, just a respectful desire not to waste one's time and that of others. If you'd like to have the honest conversation, sans vitriol, you can probably find someone here who'll join you in it. You haven't really said anything here that couldn't be clarified slightly more politely, and the topics you list could certainly be relevant to the news, and to questions of economic injustice.

But the tone of the next post is crucial in establishing what sort of discussion we're going to get. One worth having, or one worth ignoring?