Sony's Capitulation

We know North .Korea is a brutal regime as well as China, Russia etc.
but to make a movie about killing their leader is a provocation.
I regret watching it, for it was not funny and certainly vulgar, typical American garbage. Is it no wonder the World is so full of Rottenness. There is no moral values at all, I wish I had never been born in this vulgar evil place.. Where is the outrage by the millions of Xtians who proclaim their righteous (lol) and where do they draw the line of Morality and Modesty. The problem is no knowledge of G-d.

The capitulation to terrorists as the rabbi mentioned is anathema to our principles Liberty and Justice, and the rights to speak freely. It does not mean that screaming fire in a theatre is allowed, but screaming fire, is indeed allowed if the flame is real and needs to be pointed out and specified.
There are many who have been vilified since 9/11. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are two that come to mind. The subway ads that they ran were considered too much, and encouraging the notion that muslims are terrorists- which was not accurate. Those ads specifically mentioned that Jihadists are terrorists, have been, and quoted Qu'ranic scripture and the numerous supporters of homicidists. In fact... Rabbi Solomon himself put out a commentary that he felt it went too far and was inappropriate. And I personally asked him politely, given the vast evidence that this Jihadism defines and defies any and all so called moderate muslim beliefs that he felt the ads were 'offending', if the ads were not merely accurate but necessary. At the shabbas event where he was a speaker, and
I a participant, he felt they were not. And yet.... two years later, the horrific homicidism is now in full swing across many lands and the Left and Islam have cultivated the killing of pedestrians with cars, not only in Israel, but american, europe, australia and everywhere... and of course, this was what Ms Geller was pointing out back then.
But of course, better late than never Rabbi and I suspect that the good Rabbi is similarly aware of the complete lack of any horrified mass marches against any of this homicidism, by muslims, let alone hollywood actors. They all know that they will face terroirsm, which is the specific teachings of Mohammad, and the commands this prophet with no prophecy created.

Rabbi Shraga's article is a good complement and reinforcement of the sentiments expressed in the response by Rabbi Benjamin Blech to this terrorist situation which Sony - and the Western way of life - now face.
I have less sympathy with Sony's losses - it's only money - but much more with the civilised society which is being held to ransom with terror threats - real or potential - and I admire George Clooney's stand on the issue.
Dave, Johannesburg,South Africa

Sorry if you think I post anonymously because of fear. Truth is I just don't like my name. In fact, I rather hate my name and would like to change my mazel by having a name change but just can't seem to come up with one I think fits me. I was named after my dad's old girlfriend and every time I say or read my name I always have to think of the story behind it and my parent's negative relationship issues, etc. Besides, who should I fear from this website? I would hope that the people posting hear believe in G-d and therefore for the most part trying to practice a higher level of morality than the most in this world. I'm sorry if you disagree with my post, but I don't see North Korea as the major evil in this world. In fact I see them way down the list of evils in this world. It is not like they are up there with ISIS on the evil scale. No ifs ands or buts about that group, there is no meeting of the minds with them. They think they are doing G-d a service. They are way past the deep end in their thinking. But then again, there are many who believe that Israel is a nation of terrorist. But in the end it is G-d who will be the ultimate judge of things isn't it. In the meantime I'm gong to hang onto the idea that G-d is in control, though I admit at times my mind and body fights this idea. Yes, at times I fear growing old, becoming homeless, poverty, and criminal violence and such, but North Korea I'm sorry is not even on my list of things I would fear. But again, I'm going to do my best to hang on to the concept that G-d is in control and to fear not, for G-d is with me, even through the valley of the shadow of death.

that the murder of the ambassador to the US by a Muslim mob was a result of the production of a movie...who in their right mind would produce a movie that "offends" murderers? The U.S. government won't back or protect the producers! The next step is that they'll probably arrest them!

It is being reported that the administration is considering how to respond. Clearly, such plans should.not be publicized in advance. Since you seem to think this is the government,s fault, please explain what you think would be the appropriate response by.the US government.

Btw, the US government will not engage in industrial espionage against foreign companies for competitive advantage, while countries like China do so.

Deriding evil people is a good idea. It brings them down. And the government should protect its citizens. When the ambassador was murdered U.S should have gone to war and bombed the place out. That's what I was sure would happen based on my memory of the way the US govt works based on studying history and social studies in elementary school. That's what a country does. It protects its people. It protects its embassy ( a safe place in other countries where Americans are safe) never mind its ambassador, who represents the entire country!
However, American will not defend itself for one simple reasons. Many Americans and the liberals do not believe in G-d. Once you don't believe in G-d you don't believe in right and wrong and people do not feel confident killing the bad guys and protecting the good guys which is the right thing to do.
Check out what's going on with the cops and the inner city communities. Who do the cops protect? The innocent! Innocent African American children, that's who! Now, because Americans don't believe in G-d they don't feel comfortable letting the cops continue protecting innocent African American children. .

Should the worst happen and people be attacked in theaters, Sony's producers, owners, etc., could possibly be liable for people's deaths, based on past experience with our Sodom-like justice system.
Check this out: A policeman was just honored by his department for not reacting in any way when he was punched in the face by a citizen.

If the U.S. capitulates to Kim Un's regime, what will the U.S. capitulate to next? Will the U.S. say that, Kim Un's haircut is leading the way to the next rage in hairstyle? Or, Kim Un's hauteur should be emulated by today's youth?

In reality, Kim Un is a baby with a big rattle; nuclear weapons. However, he knows that IF to ever used even one of them against any perceived "enemy", his country would be "dust in the wind"; and if he survived the holocaust, he would be a "dictator" with no one to dictate. So, why does the U.S., or any other nation pay any attention to him? He has nothing we should fear. So, why do we?

Sony's failure to preview the Nork's incendiary response to its inflammatory movie, which is hardly a surprise, puts the blame for the outcome squarely in their corner. All the chest-pounding about how Sony should not have capitulated is perfect nonsense. In an industry completely subservient to the concerns of the insurance industry, from production insurance to theater liability, Sony has truly painted itself into a corner. With total financial loss a forgone, the one strong gesture that Sony could make would be to release the movie to the public domain so that it could be shown on YouTube.

Addressing the points made by Anonymous:
1) Terrorism is not the sole province of radical individuals. States have been and continue to be sponsors of terrorism.
2) The movie was made to make money by making people laugh. Satire is a legitimate way of speaking truth to power. Anyone familiar with Jonathan Swift would know that.
3) If N Korea killed American civilians on American soil, that would be an Act of War. Blaming SONY for a dictator's murders would negate the responsiblilty of that dictator for his actions.
4) Anyone traveling to N Korea these days is already a little off, as the country is well known to seize travelers and send them to prison.
5) No need to offer the N Koreans a chance to see the movie. They already accessed it when they hacked the rest of Sony's archives.
6) Charlie Chaplin satirized HItler in The Great Dictator. His flim was released in 1940, when the US was still at peace with Germany. Hitler didnt do anything.
7) The deeper moral issue is how do we defend our Freedom of Speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" had been a foundational American value until now.
8) The hackers released all manner of materials related to current and future Sony movies, except for The Interview. The assertion that N Korea had nothing to do with the hack is not a credible statement.

I believe the American public is braver than the multinational corporations that grace our soil, and braver than our politicians in Washington. Had SONY released this unfunny comedy to the innumerable independent art-house theaters, I would have gone to see it anyway, along with millions of other like-minded Americans to show solidarity.

BTW, I am not afraid of the N Koreans, and I refuse to post anonymously.

Somewhere we have this expression "Them's fight'n words!" And a famous US Supreme Court decision on free speech, ironically enough, "free speech doesn't include shouting 'fire' in a crowded [movie?] theater"? Torah teaches the power of speech and some of our most chomer issurim involve the violence of bad speech, lashon hara. We also have the issur of ana'as d'vorim which recognize the injury words can inflict, and take the old principle "a picture is worth a thousand words," and a dictum attributed to Truffaut or Godard,"a movie lies 15 times a second." The point is, the film makers got themselves into a catch-22, capitulating is an unthinkable hazard by emboldening terrorist would-be censors, but they could not show the film, for the responsibility should anything happen (and I bet it would since the NK regime wouldn't want to appear weak, "all bluster and no action." This could have triggered a war. Major wars have been triggered by seemingly lesser episodes, especially when one or both parties see no way to back down without losing face. The studio probably must issue a statement, "We believed the prudent course was to cancel the movie because the North Koreans might have followed through on their threat, though we hope they would have the decency to fight speech with speech, not physical violence. We could not jeopardize our safety given the threats if would-be foreign censors. That said, we do admit the film was ill-considered in so many ways, and an artistic satire showing our deep disagreements with the NK regime over human rights could have made its point without violent imagery making a joke of assassination of a head of state (especially one with weapons at his disposal). We hope the NK regime will change to respect human rights at home, as well as our own culture of free speech in the US allowing even tasteless offensive schlock. We regret imposing the crisis on the US gov't, and hope for a new clear international policy protecting speech.

In the end, Sony and the other stakeholders of the film made a business decision. They decided that the potential profit was not the e business was not worth the risk of damage to theaters and its other business.

When the risk of life is concerned, people have to feel a vital interest to risk their lives. I just don't see that making and showing a film is worth risking lives for. Yes, that does imply a diminished freedom. If the American government/people decides that this loss of freedom is unacceptable, then it will have to risk its blood and treasure to defend it. But it is not Sony's job to make that decision.

This argument is ridiculous. A company like Sony Pictures does not have military to defend it. What is Rabbi Simmons thinking? In the long run, North Korean's cyber attack may undermine it. But for now, Sony has to worry about any attacks on people and on its viability as a company. I do not understand te reasoning, here.

What this article and the other posted today on Aish seem to be ignoring is that first, the cinemas, fearing attacks followed by lawsuits, made the business decision not to bother with a film that could lose money. With the major chains refusing to air the film, Sony likewise made the business decision not to release it.

The First amendment guarantees the right to be protected from US government prosecution for speech. The 14th amendment extends this to protection from prosecution by the states.

Incidentally, there were many anti-Hitler films released before and during World War ll. However, foreign terrorism of the kind we have been seeing since the 1960s was not a concern at that time.

And as a taxpayer, I would not be pleased to see taxes increase so that we could have Homeland Security details at movie theatres. I fly less frequently than I used to, in part because I do not want to go thru the hassle of TSA screenings at airports. That is my decision as a consumer.

I 'm not certain I'd rank the Sony incident along the same level of terrorism as 9/11 or ISIS, etc. This is an incident with a long-established government not a radical group of individuals. One has to question why such a movie was even made, where they are suggesting that our government assassinate the current leader of another country and then not expect that leader to be offended. This seems to be a movie that crossed the line of good taste. Too, if Sony had not canceled everything and something did happened and people literally died how many would be blaming Sony for showing it when they knew of the threats to people's safety. No matter what Sony were to do someone would not be happy. It seems to me the United States is now missing a good opportunity to open up dialogue with North Korea using this hacking issue as an opening. Maybe they could offer to have a number of North Korean leaders see the movie and see if they still find it offensive and if so, why. After all, who is to say that this movie wouldn't inspire someone a little off to travel to North Korea and actually try and assassinate their leader? And as Mel Brook's said in a recent interview when asked what he thought about this in comparison to his satire on Hitler, he said: "He waited until Hitler was dead." Basically that there are a good number of fanatics out there in leadership and no telling what response you would get from airing such a movie. For example, what would Hitler have done had such satirical movies about him appeared prior to or during WWII? Are we really thinking through some of the deeper moral values when discussing this issue? What will happen if it turns out North Korea was not actually doing the hacking? Does North Korea have the right to defend itself against what it might perceive as a threat to them? Do they really understand America's movie industry is separate from its governmental policies? What do we really know about North Korea and its leader?