US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1530

On December 18 2014 14:03 dDazed wrote:
Holy shit that just happened. I cannot believe that just happened. Cyber terrorism just got these corporations to shelve their projects. What does this mean going forward?

On December 18 2014 15:06 coverpunch wrote:

The same thing people should have been learning for the entire internet age but still haven't - don't write in e-mail anything you would be embarrassed to have read in public. Judging from the disclosures already made, the hackers had Sony over a barrel with all kinds of embarrassing revelations. And then you have the threats of violence at movie theaters, which we have to take seriously after the Dark Knight shooting. Nobody wants to explain that 10 people died in their theater...all for a stupid comedy.

The threat is not credible and this is a victory for thuggery over free speech, but I think it is also a fairly extraordinary circumstance. It's a heckler's veto similar to the fact that many Westerners stray from making more bomb Mohammed jokes because we know it will provoke people into a violent reaction. It was not wise to make a comedy about killing the active leader of a country anyways and I'm sure people will keep that in mind.

On December 18 2014 15:06 coverpunch wrote:

The same thing people should have been learning for the entire internet age but still haven't - don't write in e-mail anything you would be embarrassed to have read in public. Judging from the disclosures already made, the hackers had Sony over a barrel with all kinds of embarrassing revelations. And then you have the threats of violence at movie theaters, which we have to take seriously after the Dark Knight shooting. Nobody wants to explain that 10 people died in their theater...all for a stupid comedy.

The threat is not credible and this is a victory for thuggery over free speech, but I think it is also a fairly extraordinary circumstance. It's a heckler's veto similar to the fact that many Westerners stray from making more bomb Mohammed jokes because we know it will provoke people into a violent reaction. It was not wise to make a comedy about killing the active leader of a country anyways and I'm sure people will keep that in mind.

The Sony Corp. studio’s 11th-hour decision, unprecedented in the modern movie business, came after the nation’s largest theater chains all said they wouldn’t play the raunchy Seth Rogen farce set in North Korea. Sony executives briefly considered alternative options, including releasing it only via video-on-demand or on television, said a person at the studio. As of Wednesday evening, Sony Pictures had “no further release plans for the film,” said a spokesman.

Comcast Corp. , the nation’s largest cable provider, doesn’t want to offer the movie on-demand due to its political sensitivity, said a person familiar with the company’s thinking.

The debacle’s roots stretch back at least to June of this year, when Sony executives deliberated over changes to “The Interview” due to its political sensitivities. Sony Corp. executives in Tokyo were concerned about the film due to Japan’s long and tense history with both North Korea and South Korea.

Three weeks ago a hacking group calling itself Guardians of Peace broke into Sony Pictures’ corporate network and stole hundreds of thousands of documents, contracts and emails. Over the weeks since the attack, batches of the documents have intermittently been posted online and circulated over file-sharing networks.

People claiming to be the hackers escalated their threats on Tuesday, warning of terrorist attacks on theaters that showed the film.

The Department of Homeland Security dismissed the terrorist threat as lacking credibility. But theater operators nonetheless asked Sony on Tuesday to delay the film’s opening, planned for Dec. 25, out of concern that the threats would depress box office sales across the industry during the critical holiday season. When Sony declined, the theaters decided Wednesday morning that they wouldn’t play the movie until the Federal Bureau of Investigation completed its probe of the matter, and maybe not even then.

Distribution executives at other studios worried that screening “The Interview” would depress ticket sales for other movies, and the concerns also threatened to keep business from surrounding stores and restaurants.

The theaters that by Wednesday had opted out of playing the movie included Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., Cinemark Holdings Inc. and Carmike Cinemas Inc. Cineplex Entertainment LP, the largest exhibitor in Canada with more than 1,600 screens, also said it was postponing “The Interview.” Smaller chains followed suit throughout the day.

On December 18 2014 15:17 GreenHorizons wrote:


It probably would of been smart to make it about killing his dad in the 2000's instead. Probably could of made practically the same movie, probably funnier (especially for the younger viewers) seeing the outdated technology of America juxtaposed to the outdated technology of North Korea.

The whole killing a sitting leader thing doesn't explain canceling the other movie from New Regency and Fox? There weren't even any threats made toward them.

The chilling effect of the Sony Pictures hack and terrorist threats against The Interview are reverberating. New Regency has scrapped another project that was to be set in North Korea. The untitled thriller, set up in October, was being developed by director Gore Verbinski as a star vehicle for Foxcatcher star Steve Carell. The paranoid thriller written by Steve Conrad was going to start production in March. Insiders tell me that under the current circumstances, it just makes no sense to move forward. The location won’t be transplanted. Fox declined to distribute it, per a spokesman.

On December 18 2014 15:35 coverpunch wrote:

You could look at what those companies are saying:


Translation: they don't want to be hacked or have employees and customers face threats of violence. Being the first makes you a victim. Being second just makes you dumb and kind of a troll.

On December 18 2014 15:49 GreenHorizons wrote:



So does that mean they are going to back off talking about China manipulating currency, NK's human rights abuses, etc... For fear of being hacked? Just stop all critical coverage of nations who might hack and expose these companies? If that's the planned reaction that is a pretty big deal.

On December 18 2014 15:50 Sub40APM wrote:
So just to be clear: American studios are less terrified of Arab terrorists who actually go around chopping peoples heads off than North Korean terrorists. This indeed will be a chilling lesson, and moving forward every American corporation better be prepared to be attacked by anti-American cyber terrorists because the costs are so minimal, the propaganda damage is maximal.

On December 18 2014 15:55 coverpunch wrote:

Um, no. They just won't make movies about North Korea for a while, and if they come back, the movies won't be about killing their leader or poking fun at its society.

You know, this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. The bomb Mohammed cartoon was nine years ago. We still report on Islamic countries, but we don't make editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed or make media jokes that Muslims might find blasphemous.

By what measure are American studios "less terrified" of Arab terrorists?

On December 18 2014 16:13 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't understand how one could be afraid to make a movie that is just set in N.Korea (we don't know any offensive details) but one is going to be able to be openly critical of them?

The Muhammad cartoon offended pretty much all Muslims to varying degrees, not all of them want to blow shit up over it, but it was offensive to nearly 1/5 of the planet. That's not really remotely comparable to this situation.



I mean it would be more like canceling "Homeland" because the Pakistani government didn't like how they were being portrayed. You could imagine what would happen then...

The 47-page intelligence bill was headed toward a voice vote when Amash rose to the House floor to ask for a roll call. Despite his efforts—which included a "Dear Colleague" letter sent to all members of the House urging a no vote—the bill passed 325-100, with 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans opposing.

The provision in question is "one of the most egregious sections of law I've encountered during my time as a representative," Amash wrote on his Facebook page. The tea-party libertarian, who teamed up with Rep. John Conyers last year in an almost-successful bid to defund the National Security Agency in the wake of the Snowden revelations, warned that the provision "grants the executive branch virtually unlimited access to the communications of every American."

“Put simply, Sony knew about the risks it took with its past and current employees’ data,” the plaintiffs wrote in their suit. “Sony gambled, and its employees—past and current—lost.”

On December 18 2014 16:39 coverpunch wrote:

As you mention yourself, it's not necessarily the number of people offended per se so much as their willingness to turn to violence that makes the difference here. There are lots of parodies about Christianity and blasphemous remarks made about it (including regularly on TL), but we don't stifle them because it "is offensive to nearly 1/5 of the planet". The difference is there aren't prominent Christian groups who respond to parodies by threatening to kill people. This case is unique because there are hacking terrorists (possibly North Korean but not confirmed) who are threatening to kill over the release of this movie. Distributors were sufficiently frightened to decide to pull out of distributing the movie. That's why the release is being canceled.

The cartoon situation is similar because the artist also went into hiding over death threats and we walk carefully around blaspheming Islam, much more so than any other religion. It didn't really result in a slippery slope of our freedom of speech, which is sort of what is implied with this "America caved in to hacker terrorists" line of argument.

Being critical of the regime is different from a comedy because nobody concludes that the best outcome would be to kill Kim Jong Un and particularly not in a grotesque and inhumane manner. I'm not sure why it's so hard to see why people would be offended by making a parody of that.

As for details of the movie, it's worth noting that Variety provides lots of details and they panned the movie. Other sources showing the discussions clearly state the nature of Kim Jong Un's death in the movie and the way executives argued about the line between allowing creative freedom and going too far.

On December 18 2014 22:30 paralleluniverse wrote:
Sony pulling The Interview is a cowardly move. They are caving into terrorist demands.

As for the comparison with the Danish Muhammad cartoons, that was worse. It led to deadly Muslim riots all around the world and hundreds of deaths.

Both show the lack of tolerance for free speech. But the latter also had progressives betraying the principle of free speech by demanding that the cartoons be censored. I don't see these people asking for The Interview to be censored now.

It's time to take a stand for free speech, and not cave in like the spineless cowards that Sony are. That means no idea, whether it's the fictional assassination of Kim Jong Un or cartoons of Muhammad or anything else, is beyond being depicted or mocked.

President Barack Obama can thank outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for triggering the "nuclear option" in November 2013 and securing him one of the most robust judicial legacies of any modern president.

In six years, he has appointed a whopping 307 judges, who will shape the law for decades after he leaves office. The final 12 district judges were confirmed in the closing night of the Senate session on Tuesday, Reid's final move before Democrats surrender control of the chamber.

"The Obama Administration and the United States Senate have given Americans the best possible holiday present: the gift of justice," said Nan Aron, the president of the progressive law and policy group Alliance For Justice.

A total of 132 judges were confirmed in the 113th Congress — the most since the 1970s.

Perhaps most significant is his appointment of 53 judges on federal circuit courts, which have the last word on most matters of law. When Obama took office, just one of 13 appeals courts had a majority of Democratic-appointed judges on the active bench. Today, nine of 13 appeals courts have a majority of Democratic appointees.

"There has been an extraordinary onslaught of confirmations in the last year," said Russell Wheeler, an expert on federal courts at the Brookings Institution.

Obama has named the first-ever Native American woman and Indian-American federal judge. He has placed more female and Hispanic judges than any previous president, and more Asian-American and openly gay judges than all other presidents combined.

"Before Obama, 59 percent of the active judges were white males. Now it's down to 51 percent. That's quite a change in 6 years," Wheeler said. "You probably want to have a judiciary that looks like the people it's serving, and if they're all white males then you don't have that."

Until November 2013, Obama lagged behind his predecessors in confirming judges, facing unusual delays by the Senate Republican minority. Then Reid and 51 Democrats triggered the "nuclear option" to scrap the 60-vote threshold for all nominations other than the Supreme Court, advancing some stalled nominations and kicking the process into overdrive. Since then, Obama has outpaced his two predecessors in confirming appellate court judges.

In the last year, Democrats have confirmed 14 of Obama's circuit court nominees, half with fewer than 60 votes. The most salient impact of the "nuclear option" was to add three judges to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely described as the second most powerful federal court, and a feeder to the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans had refused to fill the three vacancies. The nuclear option also freed Obama to appoint some more liberal judges, including Nina Pillard to the D.C. Circuit, who drew comparisons to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and faced GOP opposition — for her work on gender equality.