Barack Obama stands up for free speech, severely criticizes SONY for pulling "The Interview"

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
I am speaking of financial liability. Sony and the theaters might not be too keen on that.

I am also saying that it's easy for someone to say what the president said and what many say here. But the attorneys may not green light this venture, because if something happens, and if people sue, they could be out of a lot of money.

There's no kind of reparations quite as sweet as War Reparations.

North Korea would be on the hook for the losses. Don't let the smooth taste fool ya, NK has the green.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Please see my added estimate of what 9/11 cost this country in money.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

All they have to do is put a sign up in front of the movie theater that says due to the sensitive nature of North Korea's potentially violent reaction to the movie, people come in at their own risk. No more liability on the theater or Sony.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: applesthateatpeople



So a sitting president makes a stand for Freedom of Speech, and you deride him for it.



Just making sure we're clear here.

Not sure that's in play here as much as the cyber security/corporation kneeling before the demands of Zod side of the argument. Obama *probably* wouldn't bless the ideology of this movie. I say that based on his overreaction and blame against "The Innocence of Muslims" movie on Youtube. He flat out blamed that movie for Benghazi and said it shouldn't have been made (though he publicly did not endorse it being "banned" by Youtube...)

There's a first for everything, and I have to give Obama props for the first time. He makes a very salient point... America CANNOT allow itself to be handcuffed in any way by terrorist pissants and their little baby tantrums and threats. UNFORTUNATELY (you knew it was coming), unfortunately, he doesn't seem to feel the same way about the rights of American citizens and government overreaction to threats or else we wouldn't have domestic wiretapping, email snooping, federal hacking, and TSA molestations.

The Prez gets to look like a good guy.
The gub'ment has an excuse to put regulations on the internet...you know, war and all.
A lot more people will see this movie when it is released.
Triple whammy.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: AgentShillington

Please see my added estimate of what 9/11 cost this country in money.

Yeah, and which country are we at war with over 9/11?

Terrorism isn't a country. North Korea is.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ~Lucidity

All they have to do is put a sign up in front of the movie theater that says due to the sensitive nature of North Korea's potentially violent reaction to the movie, people come in at their own risk. No more liability on the theater or Sony.

But with the multiplexes nowadays if it would play there the other films would lose a great deal of money for their major Christmas releases. They could choose single-screen movie houses. Maybe an internet release will be the way the argument for release might be going in SONY's corporate headquarters. A free release, thus eating the costs. In several languages.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: AgentShillington

Please see my added estimate of what 9/11 cost this country in money.

Yeah, and which country are we at war with over 9/11?

Terrorism isn't a country. North Korea is.

Your argument and logic here are...strange.

Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9/11/ Saudi Arabia paid zero reparations.

The agenda to get into Afghanistan and Iraq was set well before 9/11.

a reply to: scattergun

Oh absolutely, if I came across as hopping on the terrorist DOOM PORN train, I apologize because that was most definitely not intended. I just think it was a shame for Sony to give in to faceless threats, but I can't say that I wouldn't do the same if it was my sole decision and my employees lives may or may not be put in harms way.

We all know that it'll end up getting leaked online if Sony doesn't release it anyway!

Look who's talking !!Obama says|>

“We cannot have a society where some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Because if somebody’s goign to intimidate them for releasing a satirical movie, imagine what’s going to happen when there’s a documentary they don’t like. “Even worse, if producers and distributors start engaging in self-censorship becaues they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody who frankly probably needs their sensibilities offended. “That’s not who we are. That’s not who Americans are.

How *Ironic*

How 'bout when the White House pressures the media to suppress certain items?

I think he's covering for the DHS who probably pressured Sony because of terror attack threats.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

So a sitting president makes a stand for Freedom of Speech, and you deride him for it.

Just making sure we're clear here.

Once?

He defends it once, and I am supposed to say "GEE, I guess I was wrong... he does care"?

Just to be clear...

Has he ever NOT defended basic constitutional rights?

...or do I have to seriously lay out a mountain of links?

This man undermines the constitution every chance he gets for 6 years, defends ONE movie, and then EVERYONE loves him again...lol

Yeah, I'm the one with the problem.

a reply to: Aleister

Honestly, I think maybe two out of every thousand people will be too scared to go into the theater. Pretty much everyone knows that N. Korea is talking out their backside when they threaten physical violence against the theaters. Just ain't gonna happen.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

So instead of saying "Good for him, he did something right for once!"

You waggle your finger and deride him anyway.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: AgentShillington

Please see my added estimate of what 9/11 cost this country in money.

Yeah, and which country are we at war with over 9/11?

Terrorism isn't a country. North Korea is.

Your argument and logic here are...strange.

Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9/11/ Saudi Arabia paid zero reparations.

Saudi Arabian citizens attacked us, not Saudi Arabia.

Pretty big difference.

The agenda to get into Afghanistan and Iraq was set well before 9/11.

The President hasnt ever gotten on TV and said "Saudi Arabia did 9/11", or am I missing something?

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
What does Sharpton think about all this?

Al Sharpton Will Help Decide What Movies You Get to See Thanks to Sony

Just added a youtube vid of the speech in the OP. I'll put it here too for those who stop by at this point.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: AgentShillington

Please see my added estimate of what 9/11 cost this country in money.

Yeah, and which country are we at war with over 9/11?

Terrorism isn't a country. North Korea is.

Your argument and logic here are...strange.

Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9/11/ Saudi Arabia paid zero reparations.

Saudi Arabian citizens attacked us, not Saudi Arabia.

Pretty big difference.

The agenda to get into Afghanistan and Iraq was set well before 9/11.

The President hasnt ever gotten on TV and said "Saudi Arabia did 9/11", or am I missing something?

Same argument could be made here.

All I'm saying is that there's a big huge monetary gap between idealism and reality, no matter who's saying the words. We'll see what trumps what.

Right...

Coming from a country which chases people across the world in order to charge them and seize their assets, simply for owning a site which some users used to share material.

Obama says that "we can't have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States." That is quite hypocritical when given the above context. If the USA doesn't want other states or corporations to impose censorship, then they themselves should also refrain from engaging in such actions.

As for Sony's response, it had a right as a corporation to act the way it did. I think they could have handled the situation better, but next time they should consider how culturally insensitive they are being in producing a movie deemed offensive by its subject. I'm not excusing North Korea's hacking of Sony, but we have to understand that numerous cultures perceive factors differently. Similarly to how North Koreans viewed The Interview as offensive, i'm sure many Americans would share similar views regarding any satirical piece regarding something or someone they hold dear.

Free speech is imperative, but some measure of cultural sensitivity never hurts as long as it doesn't directly impede the creative direction. Sony could have handled the entire situation better than what it did.

a reply to: Aleister


Okay I watched the video.

I'm impressed who knew who was starring in the movie.