|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unwise Movies/TV
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.
Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.
The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Dave W:
quote:
No - I meant you didn't supply the grammatical antecedent of "it" - i.e., what exactly were you claiming Sony did, specifically as a "ploy"; I wasn't inquiring about historical precedents.
Well, I think we're all waiting to see what Sony does next. I strongly suspect that they will attempt to turn events to their own advantage and I think that is what the word 'ploy' means, unless I'm sadly mistaken. So far they haven't said or done very much, but there are some who seem absolutely sure that it was a cyber attack by N Korea and others who seem to be saying we don't know who it is other than that they call themselves 'Guardians Of The Peace'. It would be hilarious if it turned out to be a bunch of smelly teenagers in a bedroom in Vermont. The US would even have to apologise to N Korea. Bloody hell, it would make a great movie.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.
Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.
The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.
I wondered whether I should add a "rolling eyes" emoticon to my post, but decided that it was unnecessary because my sarcasm was so obvious.
Apparently i was wrong.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
The Sony movie was , from the clips I have seen a silly movie . But in USA there is that pesky 1st Amendment to the US Constitution giving freedom of speech .
As for Chaplins "The Great Dictator" It was a comedy but Chaplin after the war said that if he had known what Hitler was doing he would not have made the movie.
Does it really mean we need to be cautious in the kind of movies made ? Maybe because any movie illustrating assination of a leader is
plain wrong.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Why only leaders, though? Murder is a terrible crime, yet one can scarcely turn on US TV without encountering depictions of murder. Why draw the line at leaders?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Meanwhile, the North Korean Internet is down. While it may just be a failure, the timing and behavior makes it appear to be a denial of service attack, and might be the "Proportional Response" President Obama was talking about when discussing the Sony incident. It also might be a hacker collective like Anonymous . No one has stepped up to claim it.
The North Korean Internet is very small and only available in the Capital, most to elites and military computer hackers. It doesn't really effect the everyday citizen. It also runs through China, so they might be involved any attack.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re comments by PaulBC and Porridge:
Yes, I think *some* caution needs to be exercised in making movies. Doing one about assassinating a current, named leader is very unwise.
Someone's apt to consider it an act of war.
The head of a country isn't more important than anyone else. Movies shouldn't be made about killing a particular named person. However, the person would probably just take the makers to court. The head of a country has lots of "toys" and other options at their disposal.
And after the Colorado theater shooting, a few years back, we can't blithely assume that we're safe in theaters.
Hmmm...can something like this be taken by Pres. Kim to the International Criminal Court? Except the US isn't a signatory.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hmmm...can something like this be taken by Pres. Kim to the International Criminal Court? Except the US isn't a signatory.
The ICC handles genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Which of these categories do you think an insulting movie falls under?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Dave--
Well, that's kind of what I was asking! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I don't know whether or not they do international incidents that don't involve someone actually getting killed.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
Sorry. No. Any assassination is murder.
Political leaders have immortal souls just like the rest of us. We put our immortal souls in the same place of great peril if we kill a prominent politician as we do if we kill our spouse or next door neighbour.
The only possible argument I can think of that might in extreme circumstances countervail, is that in time of war, and following all the recognised just war principles, might a targetted taking out of the enemy commander/head of state/whatever sometimes be a better option than more conventional ways of fighting.
I wondered whether I should add a "rolling eyes" emoticon to my post, but decided that it was unnecessary because my sarcasm was so obvious.
Apparently i was wrong.
Yeah, well, considering the American track record in this area, you might have thought of that!
Also, the US and North Korea are technically still at war. We have an armistice, but no peace treaty.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--
Well, that's kind of what I was asking! I don't know whether or not they do international incidents that don't involve someone actually getting killed.
I don't think "hurt feelings" would make the grade; and though I've heard the movie may not be very good, it's probably not bad enough to qualify as a real crime against humanity.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I don't know, Dave. I was simply raising a question. I thought maybe that a court procedure, if available, might be better than Obama promising a "proportional response", and NK shouting and making threatening noises. And Japan worrying about getting nuked.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Looks like the International Court of Justice might be a better match than the ICC. In my government's infinite wisdom, the US accepts decisions as binding only when it wants to.
Only states are parties to the ICJ. That's what it's there for, settling disputes between states. Even if one regards Sony as a multinational, it is not capable of suing or being sued in the ICJ.
As for North Korea's internet, since they claim the 'Guardians for Peace' are nothing to do with them, presumably they can't accuse anyone more significant of being behind any cyber-attack if, say, some teenager with a computer in Tulsa comes forward to claim to have knocked out their internet.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It has just been announced on our television news that this film will be released after all, but initially in art-house cinemas.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
You know, since yesterday I've been pondering this: what, exactly, did North Korea, or the Guardians of Peace, or whoever, actually "get" for its efforts in this caper? Unless we're to assume that Kim What's-his-face is actually batshit loony, which I acknowledge is a real possibility, this maneuver did pose some risk to the regime / country if the US decided to get all shirty about things.
What was accomplished, from North Korea's P-O-V, that made it worth that risk -- especially now that the movie will be released anyway?
Its utility as internal propaganda is almost nil; only a few elites have internet there. If they're trying to get leverage on easing up restrictions, this seems a dubious way to go about it. Why the hell did the do this? Why this particular target? Why now? What gives? Mass delusions of grandeur above the parallel?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Anthony Burgess hated the movie Kubrick made of his book.
I've only seen the American version. It's a very powerful but dishonest film in how it manipulates the audience into like a horrible person.
Paramount just cancelled the screenings of Team America: World Police the film I mentioned earlier that portrays Kim Jong Il as an alien cockroach.
It's sad to watch the studios caving. A number of theater has specifically scheduled Team America to fill the slot created by the Sony Picture being pulled. They were aware of the risks and willing to let the audience decide if they wanted to take the risk to keep their freedom of speech. It's too bad the studios lacked courage to do so. I suppose we'll be seeing threats to Paramount from people who don't like the reboot of Star Trek and will be forcing it to shut down.
Could be that Paramount were not entirely confident in the security of their servers.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, if the source of the attack was from N. Korea, they got to defend their "Dear Leader".
Kim's father had a reputation--in the US, anyway--for being batshit crazy. (Though he was very fond of movies. Don't know what he'd think about this.) I'd hoped that the current Kim might be less crazy, because he got outside of NK and went to school in Switzerland. But from news stories I've heard since he took office, like having his uncle executed, he might not be any better a ruler than his dad.
I do think, though, that most people would be upset if someone made a very graphic movie about murdering them.
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, if the source of the attack was from N. Korea, they got to defend their "Dear Leader".
True, but given the isolation of N. Koreans, it's unlikely many folks there know of the film or its subject matter, except for the regime informing them. It just seems a colossal waste of scarce resources, plus something of a risk, to shoot up SONY for the benefit of the home side. Why "defend" against an attack nobody knows about? The rest of the world is unlikely to be much impressed.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kim's father had a reputation--in the US, anyway--for being batshit crazy. (Though he was very fond of movies. Don't know what he'd think about this.) I'd hoped that the current Kim might be less crazy, because he got outside of NK and went to school in Switzerland. But from news stories I've heard since he took office, like having his uncle executed, he might not be any better a ruler than his dad.
Relying, as I must, primarily on US-produced news, that's my impression too -- but must consider the source.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I do think, though, that most people would be upset if someone made a very graphic movie about murdering them.
Agreed, but there's an awful lot of open territory between "upset" and threatening to strike theatres-full of people who did not make the movie.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Now that would be crazy. Like a fox. Maybe this was Il's practice run before he has his hackers tooling around inside the Federal Reserve.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re comments by PaulBC and Porridge:
Yes, I think *some* caution needs to be exercised in making movies. Doing one about assassinating a current, named leader is very unwise.
Someone's apt to consider it an act of war.
Or some thin-skinned loony is likely to be unable to take the insult to his ego.
Screw him.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.
But they used him, by name, as a character. A really good lawyer might be able to make the case that Sony owed him a percentage of the profits.
I wonder if the film has an on-screen disclaimer of "all characters are either fictional, or used fictionally"?
ETA: AIUI, Americans sue for all sorts of reasons, including being upset about something. We're very litigious.
[ 23. December 2014, 22:47: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder what would happen if Kim took a more American approach, and took Sony to court for a share of the profits?
Nothing, because he doesn't have any legal claim on them. You can't sue someone just because they make you upset.
But they used him, by name, as a character. A really good lawyer might be able to make the case that Sony owed him a percentage of the profits.
I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.
IANAL, but some things to note:
--Personality Rights (Wikipedia).
The strictest relevant laws in the US are in Indiana.
quote:
Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.
(My italics.)
--Defamation--Republic of Korea(Wikipedia).
The ROK is South Korea, so it may not pertain at all to NK. But they have their roots in the same culture. And the ROK's anti-defamation laws are very strict--even if what's said is true.
--California Celebrities Rights Act (Wikipedia).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The Sony movie was , from the clips I have seen a silly movie . But in USA there is that pesky 1st Amendment to the US Constitution giving freedom of speech .
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, though. If one of those consequences is making somebody angry, they have the right to be angry.
And no, that doesn't make it okay to use that anger to, for example, blow up a cinema complex. But the point is I get a bit tired of "freedom of speech" being thrown around as if it means that no matter what you say, everybody has to be okay with it. It doesn't mean that at all. All that freedom of speech means is that the government authorities of the United States can't punish you for what you've said. It's no guarantee at all that anyone besides the government authorities of the United States won't find a way to let you know exactly what they thought of your 'free speech'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
orfeo--
Well, the definition of "freedom of speech varies a lot by country. In the US, it's a little more complicated. It also means that the gov't is supposed to protect your right to speak freely. So if you (a private citizen, corporation, etc.) try to keep someone from speaking up, then the someone, and the general public, and various parts of gov't may well remind you.
And there are exceptions, as shown in those articles.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Actually it doesn't look at all like "the government", as in the federal one, is supposed to protect anything for you.
The wikipedia article you linked to only has a brief section on 'private actors', which then links to this case, and a ruling that the California constitution has an affirmative right to free speech as distinct from the federal constitution.
There's also evidence in that article that other states haven't tended to follow suit, and that even in California there's been some narrowing of the application of the decision over the years.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't think this is at all possible. There's no way a US court would grant a public figure such control over someone else's speech.
IANAL, but some things to note:
--Personality Rights (Wikipedia).
The strictest relevant laws in the US are in Indiana.
quote:
Indiana is believed to have the most far-reaching right of publicity statutes in the world, providing recognition of the right for 100 years after death, and protecting not only the usual "name, image and likeness," but also signature, photograph, gestures, distinctive appearances, and mannerisms.
(My italics.)
Unfortunately no link is given to the Indiana statute - but nearly all the discussion there is of false endorsement, which clearly doesn't apply here. And the fact that politicians routinely use images of their opponents in campaign ads suggests their protection is very limited. quote:
--Defamation--Republic of Korea(Wikipedia).
The ROK is South Korea, so it may not pertain at all to NK. But they have their roots in the same culture. And the ROK's anti-defamation laws are very strict--even if what's said is true.
ROK defamation law obviously doesn't apply in the US, though it might matter if Sony had hoped to screen the movie in South Korea. (And DPRK defamation law, whatever it might be, would be even less relevant.) quote:
--California Celebrities Rights Act (Wikipedia).
That law specifically exempts audiovisual works of fictional entertainment (among many other things) from its restrictions.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
Meanwhile, with screening to go ahead after all, KJU had better get braced for the Streisand effect.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This blogpost from someone working in IT security makes quite a good case for it not having been NK at all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
North Korea has accomplished something I believed impossible--they've made me want to see a Seth Rogen movie.
Nevertheless, I get queasy at the idea of making a comedy about killing anyone (especially by blowing their head off, graphically). Bad taste doesn't even begin to describe it.
However, as Ruth said, the cancellation was a purely commercial decision. The theater chains were afraid that no one would show up on Christmas Day for fear of something or other. Not a credible threat, exactly--it's not like North Korea has the wherewithal to crash planes into several hundred multiplexes (9/11 was years in the planning and preparation). But fear is not rational, and corporations are risk averse.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm not convinced by the blog. It says that the US comment that the windows computer was set to Korean, where North Korean is a separate dialect.
However,Windows Locales don't support North Korean. (I can't imagine there's a big business case for doing the localization; would they sell 10 non-pirated copies?) So "Korean" meaning koko would be the closest they could set a Windows box to North Korean. That way they could use the Bopomofo editor.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
orfeo--
Free speech cases that *aren't* about something a level of US gov't has done often play out in the courts. They can even be between individuals.
One that's mentioned on that US page links to Snyder v. Phelps (Wikipedia). And yes, that's Fred Phelps and Westboro Church. One of their protest victims sued, and it went all the way to the Supremes.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Dave--
I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.
I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm not convinced by the blog. It says that the US comment that the windows computer was set to Korean, where North Korean is a separate dialect.
CBS seems to think so too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Kaplan Corday: quote:
The only relevant ethical issue to consider when deciding whether or not to assassinate a democratically elected political leader is a calculation of the possible consequences.
I wasn't talking about ethics at all, as you would have noticed if you were paying attention. The leader of a democratic government cannot impose policy unilaterally; she (or he) must govern with the consent, or at least the acquiescence, of the Cabinet and a majority of the House of Commons. That's why I don't think assassinating Thatcher would have had any effect on government policy in the 1980s; if it had, it would most likely have been a negative effect.
Whether it is morally acceptable to assassinate a political leader is a completely separate question. If you were paying attention during the discussion on the assassination of bin Laden you may remember I expressed disapproval of that, too; which may give you a small hint on where I stand on the question of whether I think it is ethical to assassinate a political leader. Even one I disapprove of.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
And given the effect assassinations often have on the political front -- i.e., that of turning the victim into a Martyred Saint of the People (at least for the victim's followers unto the seventh generation), it's worse than useless for the victim's actual political foes.
In addition, of course, to being murder.
All of which, of course, is beside the point here. No one has assassinated Kim Jong Un. It doesn't seem especially likely that anyone has actual plans to do so.
It's just a movie.
[ 24. December 2014, 16:24: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--
I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.
I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.
You were suggesting that Kim might have legal recourse; I see no reason to think so.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Many of the 300 theaters that showed "Interview" on Christmas day reported sold out houses for the showings. People said they went to support the right to show films, rather than any fondness for film which has gotten mediocre reviews. North Korean called the showing of the film "an act of war".
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
People said they went to support the right to show films
People are terribly confused.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
People are pretty clear that it's not a good film, so they are only there to defy those who threatened the theater.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I personally would risk my life to ogle Libby Caplan, but that's just me.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
People are pretty clear that it's not a good film, so they are only there to defy those who threatened the theater.
Yeah. I might want to find a way to express my support for the general notion that people should be largely free in an open society to watch what they want to watch, but throwing my money at a film that I don't think is actually very good isn't the way I'd do it.
The principle isn't about the particular film, the principle is about film in general, and I don't think it's a great idea to reward the creators of a bad controversial film, lest filmmakers everywhere cotton onto the idea that to achieve a hit, making your film controversial is more important than making it good.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
I don't think it's a great idea to reward the creators of a bad controversial film, lest filmmakers everywhere cotton onto the idea that to achieve a hit, making your film controversial is more important than making it good.
Too late.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
So how does the situation with hacking and threats over "The Interview" compare and contrast with the Charlie Hebdo-related shootings?
What if someone had followed through on their threats to attack theater-goers? What if the Paris shooters had just hacked Hebdo's computers and threatened violence?
If the two situations had come to similar ends, would the issues be the same?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yes. It's always wrong to hack someone else's computer and it's always wrong to kill the employees of a magazine. In both cases, whether you find them offensive, even if you are rationally offended according to your own word view, has no bearing at all on whether you are entitled to kill someone or even to hack their computer. The latter, though, is usually less dangerous, and for your victim, less terminal (dire pun intended).
[ 17. January 2015, 08:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beautiful Dreamer
Shipmate
# 10880
|
Posted
It's already on Netflix. I don't know if that means it's bad but, here, usually the movies that go to the $1.50
theaters shortly after release aren't exactly blockbusters, if you get my drift. In other words, crap. I've heard about Netflix and Redbox thought of as "the modern equivalent".
I could be wrong, though.
--------------------
More where that came from
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posts: 6028 | From: Outside Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
NetFlix (at least in the UK) is a pay to view service - think of it as a DVD rental, but with the data streamed direct to your TV. So, you'll get the top blockbusters, and the stuff that most of us won't have heard of. The main measure of quality (or, at least, how much people want to see it) is the price charged.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Dave--
I provided the ROK link as an example of how other countries approach free speech; and as a possible clue to how NK views it. The ROK is very strict about what you can say about someone, even if it's true. IIRC, the article mentions that's part of the East Asian concept of saving face. So the (alleged) NK reaction to the film may be partly due to that, and not just the regime's craziness.
I'm just trying to identify possible puzzle pieces.
You were suggesting that Kim might have legal recourse; I see no reason to think so.
Frankly, if The Interview has made people more aware of the completely shitty regime that exists in North Korea, then it may have done the world a public service.
I worked in a public library when The Satanic Verses came out. There were protests and threats. Mostly low key and everyone was very polite back then. Apart from an unsuccessful fire-bomb attempt. All the library staff thought it was important to stock the book so people could read it. All of them.
GK, the concept of face may explain NK's reaction, it doesn't justify it.
Freedom of speech and ideas is worth defending. The moment you spike something just because someone might be offended by it, the bullies have won.
Tubbs
[ 27. January 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
