To think if N.Korea released a film worldwide about assassinating Obama, America would not see it as an expression of 'free speech'

[CumberCookie]

Just that really.

Kin Jong-un is obviously a maniac but that doesn't mean that it is ok to produce a crass comedy film about the assassination of a leader of state. Can you imagine the fall out if a state made a comedy about killing Obama? Or perhaps Cameron or the Queen? Its really poor taste I think to make a film like that, no matter how abhorrent the politics of the individual.

Why do people think this is an image boost or marketing ploy by Sony?

Everything points to it being a disaster for them from start to finish.

I think dictators are absolutely ripe for comic treatment - (not that I'm saying this one is!) Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator. Mel Brooke's film (can't remember title) took the piss out of dictators. Life is Beautiful etc. You can still mock mass-murderers while having massive sympathy with their victims.

Does anyone think North Korea is a joke?

In America we do. North Korea is a the butt of many, many jokes. They make big dramatic threats against us all the time, none of which they've managed to carry out.

It's the equivalent of a kid pointing a rubber band gun at someone, threatening to kill them with it, and actually expecting them to cower in fear or take them seriously.

There's not much else we can do but poke fun at them. We can't send anyone in without pissing China off (and having Russia jump the bandwagon). We're all just stuck tolerating them until China gets bored of them.

Some Americans hate Obama so much they probably would find a film to kill him specifically quite funny.

I keep thinking that if it were an indie stage play I wouldn't care, but a 45 million to make + 35 million to promote major studio film says a lot about how much the US establishment & populace disrespects NK. At least Naked Gun had the grace to not precisely identify its baddies and also made fun of many national leaders in one big swoop.

I really don't think this is a marketing ploy by Sony. The leaked emails have been horrendously embarrassing for the company as they have slagged off and pissed off a lot of people.

what's there to respect to respect about NK? it's people live in horrendous conditions.

Can you imagine the fall out if a state made a comedy about killing Obama?

Did a state make this film? I thought it was a movie company.

And no there'd be no fallout. I must have watched dozens of films about killing the US president. Most of them made in the US of course.

And I'm with those who say that free speech means free even if you personally don't like it.

Anyone remember Dr Strangelove? Making fun of the US government, the military and the USSR.

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

people in the US have called to go to war over less than people calling for death of a President -- and have been involved in many deadly conflicts for far smaller slights

Really? What are these many deadly conflicts started over something less trivial than a bad comedy film?

what's there to respect to respect about NK? it's people live in horrendous conditions.

I totally get where that's coming from. But if you have to ask, then you won't understand. In a part of the world where 'face' counts enormously, a silly film denigrating their entire system won't make them want to change. They don't get the principle of free speech, anyway. In most countries a film like this couldn't be made without govt sanction, so most countries assume that if the USA govt allows it, they must actively endorse it. It's very hard for many people in most (?) countries to understand the principle of free speech.

Apparently, the people in NK think they are a master race, because that's what the state propaganda tells them.

I don't think we have any idea what they would think if shown such a movie (unless any of us are NK defectors). You have a people that are force fed propaganda. I think you (lijkk) are right; in the aftermath of the movie made about islam by some guy in California, that people who don't live in countries with free speech probably see such films as state endorsed.

@TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy I think the US has relatively strong protections for freedom of speech. Yes, money buys you more, but even the average joe is well protected.

"I don't believe it's a marketing ploy and I'm surprised people think it is. This has been hugely, hugely embarrassing to Sony - the hacked emails have really alienated their very good friends. Cinemas have refused to show it so they had no choice to back down over that means of distributing it at least."

Wrong johnfarleys they have done a U turn and are releasing it now!

Even smarter, it looks like they will be releasing it on their streaming service Crackle due to the terror threat. A very clever marketing ploy for their streaming service. Everyone wants to see it now!

That's not really a U-turn. They said they couldn't release it because the cinemas refused to show it and that were looking for a different way to release it. Now they have.

I think it's ridiculous to call it a marketing ploy as it has damaged them.

I'm glad they have because we shouldn't be letting criminals control what we do.

They have found a way to make a movie everyone wants to see available on a streaming service no-one currently has.

Did not fool me, I knew from the start the hackers were not N Korea, even N Korea have denied their involvement in it.

Well I think you'll find that the US government recognised the method as belonging to someone employed by NK before. I wasn't convinced it was the NK government as such, but even if Sony managed to employ some NK hackers they need not have released information damaging to themselves.

I am aware that is what the US government are saying, just I do not think the US government always tell the truth.

Well of course governments don't tell the truth.

But we're supposed to believe that the US government AND Sony conspired to accuse NK of hacking Sony in order to boost viewing of one movie and that they released information that harmed Sony in the process to make it look more realistic.

Not that they wouldn't do that to achieve something really important if there were no other way, but it wasn't important enough and there were loads of other easier ways.

But we're supposed to believe that the US government AND Sony conspired to accuse NK of hacking Sony in order to boost viewing of one movie and that they released information that harmed Sony in the process to make it look more realistic.

This is not the first time Sony has been hacked. Looks at the PS3 network debacle. They have notoriously bad security, and their security team should be replaced with competent people.

Someone from North Korea hacked them and Sony made lemonade out of lemons. All there is to it.

Cinemas have refused to show it so they had no choice to back down over that means of distributing it at least.

Wrong johnfarleys they have done a U turn and are releasing it now!

In what way is my statement wrong, Ralt? I was explaining that the film couldn't be released in the cinemas - because of the cinemas. You are the one who thinks it is an elaborate marketing strategy by Sony.

Do tell us about Sony's marketing department and why you think they took this very unusual strategy to destroy their relationships with their own A-lister/clients and to humiliate their own executive producers?

dreamingbohemian - I said threats against the US president, but I could make a list of the number of times that the US has staged coups in other countries because they disagreed with the results of an election that had very little impact on the US but weren't in line with US ideals (Reagan was particularly fond of that in the Central Americas but it has happened repeatedly) or when countries have tried to arrange their trade to be less favourable to the US (there is a reason the US has military bases in 156 countries and that only some of those bases are known for violence against the local population), or the times people within the US have been attacked by the US government for very trivial things because it upset White supremacy and related power dynamics that the US government is based on. I mean, Black Wall Street in Tulsa was blown up with support of the US government, killing hundreds, for being a successful Black community, I would say that that should be less insulting to the US government than a badly made movie.

writtenguarantee - As someone from the US, who lived there for most of my life, I have to disagree. It's not just about money, it is about power dynamics that the US government is built on and supports. The US is well known for attacking their own citizens when they disrupt the power dynamics the US government supports. It has been repeatedly shown to shut down schools in areas known to have active activists groups. As I already stated, the US government was found guilty in 1999 of playing a part in the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. and the files released since showed that they tried to get rid of him and many of his compatriots multiple times all for simply speaking out. The groups who get recorded, arrested, and attacked should be pretty clear.

I mean seriously, with everything that has come out of the US in the last year, I would have thought it had been made very clear to everyone how restricted those so called freedoms are to anyone who isn't shouting for anything but more oppression. We have press members being tear gassed, attacked, and arrested for standing with peaceful protesters in the last few months. It is literally illegal in certain US states to teach certain parts of history that is seen as disagreeable to the US party line, books have literally been taken off of shelves and teachers have been fired from state schools for daring to discuss ethnic solidarity protests against the Vietnam conflict, the Mexican-American war, Christopher Columbus enslaving people. How is anyone seeing freedom of speech being strongly protected in any of this?

The US is a dystopia that presents itself as a beacon of freedom while still enslaving people they don't like (slavery is still legal in the US as long as a person is duly convicted and who gets convicted is very much tilted on power dynamics, not on who is committing crimes, and the for profit prisons literally try to sue states to give them more prisons and to create tougher laws that will create more prisoners which has caused economic collapse in several areas that cannot compete with enslaved prisoner labour) and gets away with it because it has the power to do so, it has far more control of its image abroad, and other powers won't pull them up on it.

Black Wall Street in Tulsa was blown up with support of the US government, killing hundreds, for being a successful Black community,

The US government was found guilty in 1999 of playing a part in the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.

err aren't those both conspiracy theories? Got a ink to somewhere respectable that says they happened?

As for the stuff about teachers being fired they don't get to practice free speech in school. They are paid to do a job there. Free speech should mean that they can put foil hats on and stand with one foot in a bucket on a street corner and say that Donald Duck rules the world, but free speech doesn't mean they get to make up their own facts in class.

We have enough of that in the UK and it has to be stamped out.

Oh and on the subject of the US legal system. I'm not terribly impressed with it myself. Nor the UK one for that matter. Plenty of room for improvement.

But compared to what? To countries where someone says in the street that you are an unbeliever and the mob burn/beat you to death with the police looking on. Countries that arrest the victims of rape?

If you hate the US but don't hate those countries then it is just prejudice. It seems to be a popular one these days.

The BBc is going to broadcast The Assassination of Mrs Thatcher on Radio 4 in the new year. I'm sure there will be some complaints, but I don't suppose anyone will threaten to start blowing people up.

@Spork: the ruling on King was a lower court ruling that didn't name anyone specifically. In any case, the government in all the cases you mention are acting outside of the law, not within. it's hardly perfect, but better than in many places.

About teaching, as BoB pointed out, teachers aren't researchers and cannot therefore teach what they want.