One thing we heard from people on the liberal side was that the country should be leery about becoming too security conscious in the wake of the 9-11 attacks. The refrain became familiar: Those who give up freedom for security will get neither.
I always thought that was an oversimplified and somewhat sloganeering approach to the dangers and complications of the post-9-11 world. It has been given significant and ominous new meaning, however, by today's announcement by several large theater chains. As the WSJ puts it in a news release within the hour:
The largest theater chains in the U.S. have decided not to play Sony Pictures' controversial comedy "The Interview" on its planned Dec. 25 opening, said two people with knowledge of the matter.
The story continues:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating threats made online Tuesday against theaters that play "The Interview." The threats were posted online by people claiming to be the same group that hacked Sony Pictures computer systems and released reams of internal documents and emails onto the Internet.The hackers are believed by government and corporate investigators to be associated with North Korea. "The Interview," a comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, is about two television journalists recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.*******************The decision by major chains not to play "The Interview" is virtually certain to force Sony to cancel the release entirely. The studio must now decide whether to put it back into theaters at a later date, or perhaps forego a theatrical release and put the film out via video-on-demand or online.
The decision not to play "The Interview" can be viewed as prudence; a reasonable argument, sort of, can be made for that.
In my view, a better argument can be made for the idea that it's surrender, and a very, very dangerous harbinger.
I think "giving up liberty for security" is a false dichotomy (I think the quote is from Benjamin Franklin). Having to go through checkpoints at airports, courthouses etc.... is a mild inconvenience at best.
As to the propriety of the Patriot Act and the NSA spying on phone calls, while I am not a huge fan of those acts, I think it is probably necessary while the terrorist threats still loom. I think the worry some people have about this (and I do not entirely disagree) is the government could use information acquired this way for other, illegitimate purposes, similar to how the IRS targeted conservative groups.
I think the larger problem is the War on Terror is now on its 13th year with no end in sight. This is a failure of epic magnitude. I have my own theories why we have failed to end it but can save those for later.
I'm curious to know what you make of the decision to pull the movie.
I do not like it because it seems to set a precedent of appeasing terrorists. I assume the theater chains decision was a cost benefit analysis i.e. if there was a terrorist attack they'd have civil liability based on their knowledge of the threat.
That is a big problem in war on terror. For the most part our reaction to terrorist threats / attacks are largely too weak or ineffective. So they keep happening.
Bingo. It's a variant of the ransom-for-hostages problem: If you pay the ransom, you might get the hostages back (or you might not), but for sure you have increased the risk -- because you've increased the likelihood of a payoff -- of future hostage-taking.
Sony looks to be taking a big financial hit on this:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/killing-the-interview-could-cost-sony-100-million/
That's the only good news to come out of this.
Why is that good? You sell short on Sony?
Because the market is punishing Sony for being a wuss.
Of course it's not just Sony's fault. The movie chains bear a goodly share of the responsibility.