It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Those in Hollywood who are citing freedom of expression are missing a bigger picture. Yes, freedom of expression is our cornerstone, but if you aren’t around to enjoy those freedoms, it is a moot point. Consider this for a moment — the question everyone faced was simple: Was releasing a movie worth the risk of even one life and the potential liability that comes for the entire industry? There is such a thing as being legally liable if you can anticipate risk of injury to others and you disregard that and move forward. All the studios and the theater owners could anticipate possible injury and risk to others because of the threat levied by the hackers.
http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-hack-attack-amy-pascal-michael-lynton-courage-the-interview-1201331953/
I want those hackers stopped. I do not know what it is going to take to do that or how quickly that can be done. I do not have easy answers. I am all for freedom of expression, believe me. But I understand not wanting to risk lives. Over a movie. So what is the way forward?
How about the government banning people from walking down the street in case some mentalist does a Lee Rigby on them?
Maybe we should just board ourselves up in our houses to be safe - but of course the house builders will demand we vacate them in case some disgruntled nutter throws a petrol bomb through the letterbox and we sue them for negligence for having built the house with a letterbox in the first place.
The people I really feel sorry for here are the likes of Al Qaeda, the PLO and the IRA. All those years bombing stuff when actually all you need to bring the west to its knees is to just threaten it on Twitter. Who knew?
A lot of people died in many wars so we could be free and perhaps more people will have to die to keep us free and if the price of freedom is a 0.001% chance you might get killed when you go to the cinema then isnt that a risk worth taking rather than live like North Koreans in a giant gulag under the yoke of a comedian with a pudding bowl haircut? It's an insult to the memory of such people if we just give up like this.
If the US (sorry guys it largely falls on you guys as the richest and biggest country - but don't worry plucky Blighty will probably help out with a few Land Rovers) can undertake the immense logistical task of fighting a war in the middle of the desert for 10 years surely it has the resources to go to town shutting down the internet and communications activity of a tinpot nation like North Korea?
If the think they can mount a cyber war why aren't we taking the mother of all cyber wars to them? Are the US really saying they have better hackers and tech than they have themselves.
'But Wizard they're a nuclear power!!' I hear you cry. Are they really though? Yes I admit if you are South Korea and Japan you must be shitting it however having a handful of nuclear warheads with a suspect delivery system does not make you a Champions League contender I'm afraid.
We need a clear and unambiguous statement from Obama that if NK launch a nuclear missile against any sovereign state the US will retaliate fully and wipe them off the map. This was enough to give Khurschev second thoughts - and he was a proper nuclear power. I'm sure a deal can be done with China to be ok with it as it's hardly in their interests to side with a pariah state.
Before you accuse me of being a warmonger, I'd love to do a peaceful deal that suits everyone but that's not on the table and we all know that appeasing dictators is no solution. We need to start getting tough with them because if we are cowering like this just when they threaten us on Twitter then waiting until they have built up a proper stockpile (because make no mistake that is their obsession) that turns them into a bona fide nuclear power will lead us into a new and far more dangerous Cold War (if we are not already there); except instead of sane, rational men like the Soviets on the other side we'll be faced with an overgrown, overindulged toddler with his finger on the button and then we really will have something to cower about.
The right's 'Interview' hypocrisy
By Dean Obeidallah
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1441 GMT (2241 HKT)
Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report." He's also the co-director of the documentary "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @TheDeansreport The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- Not everyone will remember "Death of a President," the 2006 movie that included a controversial scene in which President George W. Bush was killed by a sniper. (I, on the other hand, can't forget it because my fiancé is an actress and had a big role in that movie).
Another thing I can't forget is the outrage that DOAP sparked among some conservative commentators, including some of those very same people who are now defending Sony's film "The Interview," about the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
"Death of a President" won an award at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival and was slated to play in several theater chains in America. That is, until some on the right went ballistic over it.
W.H.: Hack a national security matter
North Korea winning a cyber war?
U.S. investigators: N. Korea behind hack
Rush Limbaugh slammed the movie, reportedly calling the film's director a "sicko" and saying the movie was part of an "age of insanity." Fox News' Michelle Malkin denounced the film in an article she penned for the conservative website, "Town Hall" titled, "Kill Bush Mania." Matt Drudge used the word "SHOCK" (all in caps) to describe the film on the front page of his Drudge Report. And Sean Hannity grilled the film's director on his Fox News show with questions like "Do you not have a responsibility to think of the impact, the impressions that could be made on people" by depicting the shooting of Bush?
The outrage wasn't confined to the media. Rep. Peter King of New York, then chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, dubbed the film disgusting, claimed it "could incite real violence" and reportedly warned that the filmmakers "would have blood on their hands if anything should ever happen." King went on to call for no movie theater or TV network in America to show the film: "Any theater that would show this, any TV station that would show this, is acting irresponsibly. It would be a disgrace for it to be shown anywhere."
In response to this outrage, the film was indeed pulled from the big theater chains and relegated to a handful of art house theaters. As a then-spokesperson for Regal Entertainment Group, one of the movie theater chains that caved into the pressure, reportedly stated, "We do not feel it is appropriate to portray the future assassination of a president, therefore we do not intend to program this film at any of our cinemas."
Yet fast forward to 2014, and The Drudge Report reads, "SURRENDER: SONY PULLS 'INTERVIEW." (Apparently Drudge's computer is stuck in "caps lock" mode.) Malkin's Twitter feed, meanwhile, is filled with retweets that denounce Sony's puling of the film.
But the award for the biggest flip-flopper of them all goes to Peter King. The man who in 2006 called for theaters to not screen the film that portrayed Bush being assassinated sang a far different tune when interviewed earlier this week by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. When Blitzer asked King if it was appropriate for a film to depict a world leader being assassinated, King responded, "There's no reason not to do it."
King went on to state -- as if he had no recollection of what he said in 2006 -- that there have "been terrible things said about our presidents and our leaders in movies. ... This is something that, in a free society, we tolerate."
Look, if you are going to credibly defend freedom of expression, it requires that you be consistent. You can't just defend the words or images you agree with. That's not how freedom of expression works. And deep down, I know that King and the pundits on the right know this. But too often they are playing to their political base or the consumers of their media outlets at the expense of intellectual honesty. (And to be candid, some on the left are just as guilty, though typically not in the area of freedom of expression.)
Will the future bring any changes? Tough to say, although to be honest it seems unlikely. It's how some of them remain in office and attract fans to their websites and TV shows.
But thanks to a thing called Google we can discover in a matter of minutes the selective outrage and outright hypocrisy of these people. At least then we can dismiss their words as being nothing more than hollow pandering.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/18/opinion/obeidallah-interview-movie-hypocrisy/
Last year I was thinking about taking a train and there was a train accident that week and it upset me greatly so I sued Amtrack & got a million bucks.
~X(
I actually agree with your stance in general, Wiz. I am simply unsure what is the best approach at this point in time. I hope more solid information comes to light soon. I do sympathize with cinema chains not wanting to show the film if there were a possibility of theaters being destroyed (firebombed, whatever). I am not saying that was the right decision on their part, but I do sympathize. I know a line must be drawn. Giving in to terrorism, their threats, is not good to put it mildly. Surely that is counterproductive at least. Threatening to nuke them into oblivion is hard line for sure, but are we at that point? Unless we are totally prepared to do that and feel it is morally justified, then we should not be making those kind of statements.
We need to back up what we say we will do. In general, I believe the U.S. and Japan (I cannot say anything about Europe or other areas of the world) believe that NK does not have full nuclear capability, that they are a good ways away from being viable in that area. But they can do damage to citizens within their missile range (obviously SK, China, and yes my neighborhood, western Japan, as some examples). Is it originating entirely from NK? Is this a diversion, that the U.S. is throwing out there while investigating elsewhere? The general public has little to go by when it comes to proof. This not an easy situation where we can point to a clear path or stance to take right now, at this time, in my opinion. Yet we need to stand strong and take appropriate action. I don't have clear answers, I am just saying it is not as black and white, easy to discern exactly what to do, especially in regards to whatever threats we (U.S. and Japan) want to make.
No we don't, because the US has mutual defense pacts with South Korea and Japan. the North Koreans are aware of this.
As a statement it would be the wrong signal and does offer no other solutions or outcome than destruction and mayhem. Be glad that Obama and the current administration is too smart for such rightwing numbnuts approach in international politics.
Absolutely and I do hope, the respectful way of discussing also goes for those few, who don't have the knifes out to "destroy the enemy"
NK should know it's place in history but it seems Kim Jung Un has lived too secluded to understand. So we might finally get an end to this very long war indeed, and I hope with as little loss of life as possible.
@chipsticks you're right about the hypocricy of some of these people, but again it's their right to think this way and vent it out. And you're free to disagree. The theaters perhaps have the more interesting role here. It's their moral and artistic choice what to show and what to conceal, eh, I mean, not show. So it isn't a matter of making the 'right'choice, but making a choice on the right arguments.
That is no more the point though. A dictator should not decide for us what to see.
It read.
" Just to be clear, what films are North Korea allowing us to watch this holiday?"