Forgive me if considering the following scenario constitutes shrinking unpatriotically in the face of some improbable, hyperbolic threats lodged on behalf of a nation known for empty posturing, but I haven't quite been able to shake this prospect: barring the existence of government intelligence that somehow assured us no attacks from North Korea would or could come to fruition as described, what if the theater companies and Sony had "stood their ground" and The Interview had been released on Dec 25 as scheduled, and *one* terrorist style attack was successfully carried out? Let's say for argument's sake that an explosive device went off at a major theater chain location in downtown Washington D.C. or Houston or Philadelphia, 10 minutes into a packed evening showing of The Interview? Let's say 85 people were killed in the blast. Ok now hit pause for a moment.
I can't pretend to have a good idea of what the political, social, or military aftermath would look like, but I think it's safe to say that the fall out would be chaotic. Presumably one of the key measures would be for the relevant parties to establish with certainty that North Korea was directly responsible. But meanwhile, imagine the immediate media discourse on both sides of the political aisle. There seems to me, as a citizen with access only to public information and my reasoning skills, to be at least a sliver of possibility (the latest intelligence notwithstanding) that a) the threats could have originated from a source other than North Korea who nonetheless really intended to carry out an attack, or b) the threats themselves could have been empty, but regardless of their origin they inspired an opportunistic attack by some unknown lone actor or actors.
My hypothetical question then, all mechanical details and unforeseen twists aside, is what would we -- "as a nation" so to speak -- have to say about the decision to release the movie if one attack as described above really did get carried out, either by North Korea or another party? Would the predominant sentiment really be that "the right thing" was done by releasing the film, or would it swing quickly towards regret and blame? Would nearly everyone still be trumpeting that the mandate of free speech demanded this film be released on principle? Would we be able to hold onto an almost Kantian resolve that the unwavering commitment to some ideal of freedom was worth the 85 deaths? Would we be able to suppress in our minds the notion, as irrational as it might be, that Seth Rogen's bad idea and ego trip was in some fundamental way responsible for the tragedy?
I'm not saying I think the film should or should have been canned. I will say I'm conflicted. And I'm just curious to hear what others think.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me if considering the following scenario constitutes shrinking unpatriotically in the face of some improbable, hyperbolic threats lodged on behalf of a nation known for empty posturing, but I haven't quite been able to shake this prospect: barring the existence of government intelligence that somehow assured us no attacks from North Korea would or could come to fruition as described, what if the theater companies and Sony had "stood their ground" and The Interview had been released on Dec 25 as scheduled, and *one* terrorist style attack was successfully carried out? Let's say for argument's sake that an explosive device went off at a major theater chain location in downtown Washington D.C. or Houston or Philadelphia, 10 minutes into a packed evening showing of The Interview? Let's say 85 people were killed in the blast. Ok now hit pause for a moment. I can't pretend to have a good idea of what the political, social, or military aftermath would look like, but I think it's safe to say that the fall out would be chaotic. Presumably one of the key measures would be for the relevant parties to establish with certainty that North Korea was directly responsible. But meanwhile, imagine the immediate media discourse on both sides of the political aisle. There seems to me, as a citizen with access only to public information and my reasoning skills, to be at least a sliver of possibility (the latest intelligence notwithstanding) that a) the threats could have originated from a source other than North Korea who nonetheless really intended to carry out an attack, or b) the threats themselves could have been empty, but regardless of their origin they inspired an opportunistic attack by some unknown lone actor or actors. My hypothetical question then, all mechanical details and unforeseen twists aside, is what would we -- "as a nation" so to speak -- have to say about the decision to release the movie if one attack as described above really did get carried out, either by North Korea or another party? Would the predominant sentiment really be that "the right thing" was done by releasing the film, or would it swing quickly towards regret and blame? Would nearly everyone still be trumpeting that the mandate of free speech demanded this film be released on principle? Would we be able to hold onto an almost Kantian resolve that the unwavering commitment to some ideal of freedom was worth the 85 deaths? Would we be able to suppress in our minds the notion, as irrational as it might be, that Seth Rogen's bad idea and ego trip was in some fundamental way responsible for the tragedy? I'm not saying I think the film should or should have been canned. I will say I'm conflicted. And I'm just curious to hear what others think.