[jgwest]

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 stance. It doesn't seem like Sony is going to yield; it seems like they are going to just find an alternative distribution path: "No thanks, 2600. We got this. After all, this is the sort of hype that we'd... uhh... kill for.... uh..."

[rwallace]

To be honest, I have no interest in seeing the film because everything I've heard about it indicates it's probably a crap film. I furthermore think it was a bad idea to make it in the first place.

However, I applaud 2600's proposal because it points in the right direction: a calm, nonviolent but assertive refusal to be intimidated, rather than the hysterical paranoia and escalation of threats we are seeing all too much of in recent years.

[unclebucknasty]

>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.

[srj]

What has lead you to believe that free speech is any consideration in Sony's dealings? This is the company that has (and still does) push for SOPA and CISPA-like abilities to take down websites with the most minor effort!

It's unclear why the release was canceled. Maybe Sony wants to just put this whole thing behind them. Maybe they want to curtail any further leaks that they feel may be worse. Perhaps the executives feel that being a victim of a foreign nation absolves them of any culpability and they're playing that card to the greatest extent they can. But I highly doubt they're going to make any about face on a policy issue and are still very much against free speech as far as the internet is concerned. If anything this incident will be used to bolster their arguments and to that end maybe it has worked out better for them than "The Interview" ever could.

[unclebucknasty]

>What has lead you to believe that free speech is any consideration in Sony's dealings?

Call it artistic freedom if you'd prefer. It's all a form of free speech and I'm not sure that Sony has ever come out against artistic expression.

Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the shoe is on the other foot now. That point, of course, is essentially the main premise of the article on which we are commenting, and it's what makes the situation so sweetly ironic to its author(s).

But, you know, it's all P.R. and all about messaging (from both sides). Sony doesn't have to really believe in free speech for everyone in order to make a stand on that premise. They are surely aware that standing on their right to make a profit probably wouldn't engender as much support or be as effective as standing for artistic freedom, free speech, etc.

And, of course, all of this discussion about what to call it is pedantic, because my bigger point was that they have an opportunity to turn this on its head and have it completely backfire on the attackers, thus providing strong disincentive for future attacks.

>It's unclear why the release was canceled.

I think it's pretty clear that, at least in part, they were tired of having their asses handed to them. In short, they were punked.