“The Interview” should have been widely released

By Roberto Kampfner
Staff Writer

After the threatened attack by the North Korean hackers on Sony Entertainment, the decision to cancel the release of the Sony movie “The Interview” conflicted with the United States’ preservation of expression.

In November 2014, hackers allegedly associated with North Korea digitally attacked Sony, the company producing the movie. In these attacks on Sony’s digital network, the intruder stole terabytes of private data and emails.

The hacker then released the data to halt the release of “The Interview,” a satirical movie about the political climate in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that utilizes humor to highlight the inequalities of the country and its leader, Kim Jong-Un.

Sony’s actions could be categorized as precocious and safe, but they gave the hackers potential leverage over a powerful company in the U.S., which put freedom of expression in question.

Sony should have released the movie solely on the basis of the First Amendment, which allows for freedom of speech. “The Interview” serves as a platform to politically express a satirical view of the political situation in the DPRK as a whole. Even a comedic movie that makes fun of a political figure deserves to be protected by this right.

President Barack Obama said in a press conference that the movie should have been released and that the U.S. would “respond proportionally” to the destructive attacks on Sony. Obama’s response effectively backed the nation’s founding principles and also sent the appropriate message that when the nation’s values come under attack, it is necessary to respond accordingly.

Most of the DPRK’s film industry is fueled by propaganda. According to a report by Fox News, many of its films glorify its leader while depicting Americans as villains. By attempting to restrict the American media, the hackers aimed to establish their values of fear and oppression on the U.S. and should not have been given the power to do so.

It is not the responsibility of the movie’s production company to keep the people safe, and, therefore, the release should not have been restricted from major movie theater chains

Though not the best scenario, Sony’s subsequent limited release of “The Interview” in independent theaters and online video streams allowed for wider viewing without censorship.

While it is good that the movie was eventually available to a large audience, the online release seems to be a reactionary plan in response to the criticism from the American public, not an organized decision supporting free speech. The theaters and Sony should have gone forward with a regular release to support the First Amendment without question.

The restricted release of “The Interview” was an appeasement to a foreign dictatorship, and Sony should have released the movie as planned, despite threats.