Live data from Hacker News

An Offer to Sony from 2600

2600.com

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#51
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Terry Jones burning a Koran is starting to get into the "you're putting peoples lives in danger just to prove what a ridiculously pompous ass you are" camp. There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory. But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read that…

Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory. No, no it's not. It's an insensitive, assholish and petty action, but it does not constitute an incitation to immediate violation of the law, including but not exclusively because it was announced beforehand.

Incitement to crime -- speech that spurs another to commit a crime -- is just one of 6 categories of speech which are not protected.

The other five main exceptions to free speech protection include; Defamation, Obscenity, Sedition, and...

Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a "compelling government interest," such as national security. This standard is extraordinarily strict and hard to prove, making it a rather narrow exception to free speech.

[1] - https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-c...

I thought that the courts would look at it under this 6-part framework and they might possibly decide, under the facts and circumstances of Terry Jones for example, that it falls under "fighting words" or maybe some kind of hate speech.

But now I've read up more on Terry Jones and what actually happened, and, you're right, the consensus was it was protected speech.

Pulling an Obama quote from Wikipedia;

President Barack Obama was asked on September 9, 2010, on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the Quran burning controversy. He said, "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." He said, "I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making." "I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in.” Asked if the event could be stopped, Obama replied, "My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning … but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us."[42]

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#52
post #24

Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both? Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other, then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expres…

Ok, let's fill in a little bit of background here: North Korea isn't a happy place. It's a tyrannical dictatorship that has earned its spot as, quite literally, the worst place on earth. The Kim family has spent decades systematically programming the North Korean people as part of a system that follows in the tradition of such evil as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Pasha. Concerning yourself with Kim's feelings is the height of ignorance and folly: he certainly doesn't concern himself with the millions who have died at his family's hands by, in NK concentration camps, and through preventable famine.

Interestingly enough, The Interview never actually hurt the feelings of the North Korean people. In order to do that, they'd have to learn about it first. And there's nothing less likely to find its way into a closed society than a comedy about the assassination of that society's leader. But that's largely irrelevant: we don't live in a society that enforces "respect" at the expense of individual liberties.

There's a significant difference between being able to respectfully engage cultural differences and blindly accepting the abuses and atrocities. Particularly when we're talking about the sort of practices that make North Korea, well, North Korea (which have nothing to do with a Korean culture that dates back centuries and everything to do with one family's mad desire for absolute power).

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#53
If Sony wanted to release the movie they probably wouldn't miss the chance of making money with it so this proposal sounds rather stupid. There is no differentiation between Hacker and Cracker in public media. Get over it.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#54
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Crackle.

I was thinking the same thing. While I don't believe it is well known, Crackle is available to most platforms.

If they released it today on that platform, it would be well known in a matter of hours.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#55
post #43
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Administration officials said President Obama’s national security team is considering a range of options to retaliate against those responsible for the cyberattack on the movie studio" [1] I agree it's very early days. I think what I'm fixating on is that we now live in a world where the US government needs to formulate a response to a business hacking. I mean, not a civil but actual military response. I think this…

A big military response would just escalate this whole issue and probably encourage more of the same. I don't like how everything gets framed as a military problem these days. I hope that this incident only inspires new standards for business and new shared goals for engineering. We could approach this like the Apollo landing or the cure for cancer and hopefully not like the War on Terror.

>hopefully not like the War on Terror.

Oh, it's coming. The drumbeat has started and harrowing possibilities are being offered. The media will be in full panic mode and billions of dollars in contracts will be awarded soon enough.

There's too much money to be made to resist treating it like the "War on ____".

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#56
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big military response would just escalate this whole issue and probably encourage more of the same. I don't like how everything gets framed as a military problem these days. I hope that this incident only inspires new standards for business and new shared goals for engineering. We could approach this like the Apollo landing or the cure for cancer and hopefully not like the War on Terror.

An attack, a malicious attack by a state actor, is an attack, cyber or otherwise. What if they hacked a hospital and somehow shut down life support systems, there's little moral difference than if they sent soldiers into the hospital. Whether we like it being framed militarily or not, this IS a military issue (if it's a state actor) as that's the point of the military to defend life liberty and property. However, tha…

> 'sanctions haven't done a damned thing ever'

OT, but have you read what's going on in Russian this last week? It's unbelievable how hard the sanctions have hit them, and how quickly. It's a huge story which has been drowned out in all this other noise. NK is obviously not Russia, being more insular makes it harder to sanction them.

The escalation of cyber warfare, the possibility of it all being a false flag, the idea of a military response to defend, exactly as you say, life liberty and property, the idea of a necessary response if sufficiently proven to be a state-sponsored attack... the idea of the network as a battle zone with governments playing offense and defense... it all gives me shivers.

As @unclebucknasty says, the drum beat has started. This is going to take us somewhere very interesting in 2015.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#57
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Terry Jones burning a Koran is starting to get into the "you're putting peoples lives in danger just to prove what a ridiculously pompous ass you are" camp. There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory. But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read that…

"Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory." I hope not. Making capitulation to a threat, implied or explicit would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. You would not be able to speak out against... anything.

Well… The difference is the implied meaning of burning a book.

Making a movie about the assassination of the NK leader doesn't imply hate. I'm pretty sure making the movie wasn't about the hate against NK per se, but rather a comedy about the situation in an oppressed country.

If you burn a koran/bible I'm pretty sure we all know what that means: You hate the religion and wan't it to die.

As you can see the difference is that the first one falls under free- and the other under hate-speech.

Now if you ask me, it's still wrong to hate against those who burn "holy books" or whatever. In my opinion hate speech is integral to having free spech, even if it should be watched carefully (I really don't wan't a third reich here in germany) - something that has been lost in the past couple years. But it's important to differenciate between both.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#58
post #5
post #4

Sony CEO Michael Lynton says Sony still wants The Interview to be seen and is considering their options. Those include DVD and Blu-ray home video, YouTube, VOD, and other digital platforms but “there has not been one major VOD distributor, one major e-commerce site that has stepped forward and said they are willing to distribute this movie for us.” [1] Hackers to Sony: We'll stand down if you never release the movie.…

I heard a Sony executive on NPR today say "If and when this movie is released... Let me stop, when this movie is released..." Sony Pictures clearly intends for the film to be seen, but they need a distribution partner.

I'd interpret that exactly to the opposite: They're not sure if they're going to release it, but they want to put on a brave face and say that they will.

In reality, they're probably all scared shitless. If all of their employees' personal info has been compromised as reported, I can understand that they'd be worried about the possibility of someone getting hurt. Even a minor, harmless event could lead to bad press. Of course, no one believes that NK actually has the ability to inflict physical harm outside of their own country, but I can understand the Sony executives' hesitance to put that to the test.

Re: An Offer to Sony from 2600

#60
post #7

Too much condescending tone in this "proposal"... I think people just want to see the film. I certainly want to see the film. It might have a crappy plot or a second-rate screenplay or subpar acting, but with this sort of publicity none of that matters. Just watching it will be an event, perhaps an even bigger event than watching The Last Temptation of Christ was way-back-when... Anyway, Sony seems to be in a defiant…

>Just watching it will be an event

That brings up a good point. Perhaps Sony should even consider using the controversy in its marketing, then later make claims about how much more successful the film was than projected, thanks to the added publicity (which will almost certainly be true).

Not only would it show defiance, it would underscore the paradoxical effect of trying to stifle free speech in this manner. And, that might provide the biggest disincentive of all for future prevention: demonstration of ineffectivness.

Post reply on HN