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

Obama stands up for free speech...and criticizes Sony........

Blames benghazi attack on youtube video and allows the man who made it to be sentenced to prison....

Benghazi scape goat

Goes after Dinesh Desousa who was an outspoken opponent of Obama, and sends the IRS and other agencies to get dirt on him.......and tries to get him sentenced to jail time....

Anyone who buys this crock by Obama needs to have their head examined.......

Smoke and mirrors people, anything to detract from whatever scandal people are looking at him for......

Just like the "Release of Cuban prisoner" he had to go on TV for.......I notice he didnt go on TV when he turned loose 30 something Al-quaida fighters from Guantanamo , into Uruguay so they could find their way back up to the US through our oh so secure boarders........

Guys a joke

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: LeatherNLace
Kinda. Again, the reality is there would be costs and reparations and we know full damn well the terrorists wouldn't be paying them. We would be. Or Sony or the theaters would (sans insurance if they dont have that rider...whatever), particularly if they were forewarned and chose ti accept. Wonder what tgeir attornets are advising.

It's called assumed risk. If the theaters, knowing the risk, show the film and something happens, then the theater would have to pay out of their own pocket for damages to their property. Likewise, if the patrons of the theater, knowing the risk, choose to go see the movie anyway, then they would be responsible for any damages to their property and any medical expenses incurred due to injury. Their attorneys are probably advising them exactly as I just stated, because that is the extent of their risk.

Proving negligence is far more complicated than this. People assume risk every time they fly, but if there's a terror attack the survivors and families get paid. As on 9/11. Would this assumption of risk stretch over to the theater next door? To the entire mall?

Like I said, we paid a LOT after 9/11. Are still paying. So even if Sony AND the theaters use the assumption of risk defense and are judged not negligent and the insurance weenies wiggle out of it, someone's going to pay.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Aleister
It'll be released now, I'm pretty sure of that.

Even after this statement, doesn't it still depend on what the lawyers make of it all. If it is released and something happens, who's liable?

Why does it matter? DHS has already said that there is no credible intelligence that Guardians of Peace could ever carry out their threats

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not fear more terrorist rhetoric. I went through enough of that baloney in the 2000 decade with the Bush admin yelling terrorist every time a shadow moved.

Yeah. As far as we've been told. Threat mitigation and risk-based prioritization isn't a public thing. Like I've said a few times. We shall see.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I would still totally go see this in the theater........lol

Especially now !

Can you imagine if they went ahead with the release and the threat was made real, in even only one theater?

All eyes, and pointy fingers would have been aimed at Sony... Their greed allowed this tragedy to happen, when they failed to take the threats seriously, they put potential profits ahead of the safety of the consumers....

There would have been no end to the legal actions and suits.

The president needs to save his harsh words and criticism for the insane north Korean leadership.

originally posted by: ausername
Can you imagine if they went ahead with the release and the threat was made real, in even only one theater?

All eyes, and pointy fingers would have been aimed at Sony... Their greed allowed this tragedy to happen, when they failed to take the threats seriously, they put potential profits ahead of the safety of the consumers....

There would have been no end to the legal actions and suits.

The president needs to save his harsh words and criticism for the insane north Korean leadership.

My eyes wouldn't be on Sony at ALL. My eyes would be on taking out the ATTACKER.

Let me ask you a question, if you would.

[snipped]

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I would still totally go see this in the theater........lol

Especially now !

Haha.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm betting on it being a no show. In second place, I say they hacked themselves and this is all a big joke or PR stunt. In third place, oops...I forgot.

Overall though, I relate to the president's sentiment, but all it is is words. The reality, again, is different because it's not an easy decision either way.

I do love the idea of hacking all the computers in NK and showing this movie on a loop.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I would still totally go see this in the theater........lol

Especially now !

Haha.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm betting on it being a no show. In second place, I say they hacked themselves and this is all a big joke or PR stunt. In third place, oops...I forgot.

Overall though, I relate to the president's sentiment, but all it is is words. The reality, again, is different because it's not an easy decision either way.

I do love the idea of hacking all the computers in NK and showing this movie on a loop.

One thing im curious about, I was under the impression that it was hacked and leaked? like, they leaked it out on the net as well, so people could just go dl it.........did i misinterpret that?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I'm not sure it was one of the movies they took. I read they took Annie, Fury, To Write Love on Her Arms, Mr. Turner, and Still Alice. At least those are the ones being downloaded. That doesn't mean they didn't take The Interview though. It would be pretty hypocritical if they did and made it available, wouldn't it?

Also, I found this about liability, as in of the movie theaters: Tort Liability of the Victims of Terroristic Threats.

Like I said, it's a pretty wriggly barrel of snakes.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Goes after Dinesh Desousa who was an outspoken opponent of Obama, and sends the IRS and other agencies to get dirt on him.......and tries to get him sentenced to jail time....

What a bunch a BS!!

Desousa was guilty of making illegal political contributions which HE ADMITTED TO HIMSELF in court. He's nothing but a right wing hack and that is putting it nicely.

I also saw his movie, or at least as much of it as I could stand to watch and it was horrible. He should get some jail time just for making that piece of crap.

He , or his writers made some good points. Im all for free speech but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Im kinda on the fence because for Rogan and DiFranco it wasn't a MUST that they make fun of that particular person that they knew cant take it, Yes it was funny, Yes I hate that dictator too and yes he deserved it, and yes they have the right, this is America ,,BUT people may die because of that. Im all over the place on it.

From CNN...

Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton tells CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an exclusive interview that he disagrees with President Obama's comments on Friday that it was a mistake to cancel the release of "The Interview" after a cyberattack from North Korean-backed hackers.

"We have not caved. We have persevered. And we have not backed down," he says. "We have always had every desire to have the American public see this movie."

That last bit doesn't make too much sense to me. But then not a lot does these days. Maybe it's just out of context.

ETA: Link

In his CNN interview, Lynton said "the president, the press and the public are mistaken" about what actually led to Sony's decision to shelve the "The Interview."
"We do not own movie theaters," Lynton said. "We cannot determine whether or not a movie will be played in movie theaters."

Lynton said he would be "fibbing" to say he "wasn't disappointed" in Obama's remarks.

"I don't know exactly whether he understands the sequence of events that led up to the movie not being shown in the movie theaters," Lynton said. "Therefore I would disagree with the notion that it was a mistake."

Now this last bit, is kind of the feeling I've had all along too. Neither we nor the president, when we relate this to free speech, really know what occured or what the liabilities are here.

Did Obama even mention or criticize North Korea?

a reply to: mOjOm

He should get some jail time just for making that piece of crap.

funny thats exactly what the administration said too......

interesting that post evoked so much emotional response out of you........maybe I should go watch it myself

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: LeatherNLace
Kinda. Again, the reality is there would be costs and reparations and we know full damn well the terrorists wouldn't be paying them. We would be. Or Sony or the theaters would (sans insurance if they dont have that rider...whatever), particularly if they were forewarned and chose ti accept. Wonder what tgeir attornets are advising.

It's called assumed risk. If the theaters, knowing the risk, show the film and something happens, then the theater would have to pay out of their own pocket for damages to their property. Likewise, if the patrons of the theater, knowing the risk, choose to go see the movie anyway, then they would be responsible for any damages to their property and any medical expenses incurred due to injury. Their attorneys are probably advising them exactly as I just stated, because that is the extent of their risk.

Proving negligence is far more complicated than this. People assume risk every time they fly, but if there's a terror attack the survivors and families get paid. As on 9/11. Would this assumption of risk stretch over to the theater next door? To the entire mall?

Like I said, we paid a LOT after 9/11. Are still paying. So even if Sony AND the theaters use the assumption of risk defense and are judged not negligent and the insurance weenies wiggle out of it, someone's going to pay.

You can see it however you wish, but I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject rather than blindly debate someone who is. There is NO negligence to be proven because terrorist/war acts are not something you can hold a 3rd party liable for. The fact remains that there is 100+ years of case law on the subject of liability as it relates to terrorist/war acts. In those instances, one can not sue a 3rd party (in this case, the movie theater) for negligence/liability...a judge would rightfully dismiss the case upon it crossing his/her desk. Research it a bit. Hell, you can start by reading the coverages of your own homeowners policy. The language is the same across all policies. And it reflects all civil codes. You are right about one thing though...someone will pay..and that will be everyone paying for their own losses.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

funny thats exactly what the administration said too......

interesting that post evoked so much emotional response out of you........maybe I should go watch it myself

My response was evoked because the way you said it made it seem like he was unjustly targeted, when clearly he was in the wrong.

He fully admitted that what he did was illegal and he knew it was when he did it, but did it anyway. I have no idea whether or not anyone from the administration actually targeted him or not, but as far as him getting convicted, that was totally justified. Even then he got off super easy anyway.

As for his film, if you want to call it that, you should check it out if you want to. You may like it. I thought it was total crap. Just a bunch of absurd unsupported theories and some flat out ridiculous lies strung together with stock footage and reenactments with his bad narration in the background. Like I said, I honestly could only handle watching about 1/3 of it before it was too much to continue.

I also think his credibility is bankrupt as well. He's just another Far Right Wing talking head who tows that line to a tea regardless of what the current topic may be. There are other examples I could talk about as well, but I'm not here to completely thrash on the man, as it's not the actual topic of the thread. I just saw your comment and so I threw it out there. I don't know how much you know of him but he really is a hack. (My words)

Does anybody think a sitting world leader has a right to worry about a movie of a enemy country that makes a parody of his grisly murder?

Are we that self centered we can’t see this from his perspective.


The US murdered Khadayi, Sadam and many others.

We expect everybody to lay down and respect our values and never respect others humanity

I ma afraid to say the folks here are falling into a big trap

originally posted by: Willtell
Does anybody think a sitting world leader has a right to worry about a movie of a enemy country that makes a parody of his grisly murder?

Maybe. But then propaganda about killing one's enemy is pretty much standard isn't it??? I'm pretty sure every Leader has produced some form of propaganda about defeating their enemies since there has been more than one Leader. Taken in context, with it being a comedy by Rogan, he should be smart enough and mature enough to know better.

Are we that self centered we can’t see this from his perspective.

You mean his perspective that he is to be thought of and treated as a Living God. Who's every action since birth has been correct and just. That he is infallible in every way and that his self image is so Divine that it is beyond any critique????

He called for the illegal hacking of a legit business and threatens violence unless the entire world do what he wants over a movie which has him as a character and you say "we" are self centered??? Are you serious????

The US murdered Khadayi, Sadam and many others.

Ya. He might want to consider the fact that our Leaders want him gone. I'm pretty sure he's threatened to kill us too. Not in some comedy movie either, but for real, so what's your point here again???

We expect everybody to lay down and respect our values and never respect others humanity

No, I'm pretty sure it's him who's expecting everybody to lay down and respect his values and he's doing it by threatening violence and illegal hacking and coercion.

I ma afraid to say the folks here are falling into a big trap

I think you're over thinking this way too much. So much so that you're confusing what is very easy into something difficult.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Maybe you should educate yourself or get your head off the insurance track. You are speaking strictly insurance. The fact that a policy will or won't cover something isn't the be all end all. I suggest you check out some lawsuits currently going on in similar situations, even where there was no forewarning and the statements the theater owners who pulled out have made. And again we get back to my original point, which is that someone WILL be liable and/or spend a fortune (in real money and/or) good will defending this and/or will more than likely have to pay, whether "insurance" does or not.

Sure it's not ok when foreign powers try to limit free speech in the US but it's ok for us to do that to our own people and other countries. I mean it's pretty evident who owns the media in this country...

This is just about money and winning a war with NK, Russia and China. I can't praise Obama for this because I don't think he's sincerely defending the freedom of speech.