Movies, Politics

Sony's Choice: Is Obama Engaged In Victim Shaming?

While President Obama was right about the consequences of heeding terrorist whims, he may have been wrong about whose responsibility it was to bear the burden of not heeding those whims.

By  
on

I had no particular interest in paying ten bucks to see The Interview, the film that inspired North Korean computer hackers to attack Sony Pictures. The comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco appeared to feature too few subtitles and Truffaut references to keep me entertained. The leaked scene where Korean dictator’s head explodes is more a Katy Perry reference than a David Cronenberg allusion, the latter of which I might have gone for. There’s a non-zero chance that I would not have seen The Interview at all.

My fickle, intermittent snobbery is beside the point here, as it is beside most points. The point is that I, like every other American above the age of 17, unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, lost the opportunity to watch puerile, tactless gross-out humor like our forefathers intended. How many patriots’ blood spilled for my right to take in those jerk-off jokes and pot humor? Too many for me not to appreciate their sacrifice. That’s how many. If we stop being tasteless and irreverent, then the terrorists have truly won.

So, I largely agreed when President Obama spoke out about Sony’s pulling of The Interview at a press conference on Friday. However, while he was right about the consequences of heeding terrorist whims, he may have been wrong about whose responsibility it was to bear the burden of not heeding those whims.

The President called the Sony cyber-attack a national security breach, while also criticizing Sony for cancelling the film’s release. On Friday, he breezily said, “I wish [Sony executives] had spoken to me first. I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

There’s a troubling inconsistency here, even if the President was simplifying his message to sound folksy. If the attack was truly a national security matter, should the President have had to wait around for Sony to hit him up for advice? And if it was simply a domestic criminal situation, isn’t it a bit unfair to go out of his way to chastise an extortion victim for complying with the perpetrators’ demands?

If Sony was just responding to the hackers’ extortion attempt, then the President’s chastising is awfully harsh. If our national security was at risk, then the President should have handled the situation more aggressively himself.

Sony’s Choice

Sponsored

Let’s not forget that Sony was forced to respond to threats of violence against moviegoers if it released The Interview — not merely to threats of more leaked emails about Angelina Jolie. The hackers’ message may read like a monologue from Zero Wing, but it was not unreasonable for Sony executives to take the threats seriously after Sony endured a cybersecurity breach of historic magnitude. Furthermore, by the time Sony nixed the film’s opening, it had few viable options left for a conventional theatrical release.

Sony withdrew The Interview only after movie theatre chains such as ArcLight Cinemas and Landmark Theaters began dropping scheduled screenings of the film. (Review a blow-by-blow timeline of the Sony attack here.) Movie theatres did not want to screen the film because they feared that showing it might hurt box office sales or, worse, people. Even moviegoers who intended to watch other movies might stay away from cineplexes showing “The Interview” on the next screen over. Shrapnel or sarin gas won’t listen when you insist that you were there to see Into the Woods, not The Interview.

Members of the moviegoing masses shouldn’t necessarily be faulted either. Is watching the new Hobbit sequel worth any risk of being attacked by radicals? For many of us, it isn’t even worth trekking from the hinterlands of the parking garage to the theatre entrance. Hauling your family to the movies while pontificating about freedom could have been an awesome civics lesson for your kids. But if the terrorists had followed through with their threats? Man, you’d probably feel like the least-awesome parent ever.

If Sony and the theatre chains had sallied forth with The Interview, they would likely have been economic martyrs to the noble anti-censorship cause. They would have lost money, maybe lots of money, on a day that they usually count on for blockbuster box office numbers. If violence did occur, though, they would have been pilloried for placing profits above people’s lives. Either way, Sony suffers.

The Only Private Actors Who Should Feel Ashamed Here Is The Screenwriter Who Said, “The Interview Needs One More Gag About Rectal Insertion”

Sponsored

Either Sony was a victim of extortion, or Sony is being saddled with undue national security responsibilities. Either way, is it fair to ask Sony or any other private actor to bear the costs of doing the right thing here?

If the hackers who breached Sony’s computer system security and threatened violence were extorting Sony rather than threatening broader American security, then it makes some sense that the U.S. government would oppose Sony giving the hackers what they asked for. The U.S. government frowns upon negotiating with terrorists. (Occasionally, however, it frowns while negotiating with terrorists too, mind you.) It sometimes even prevents the families of hostages or potential victims from bargaining with the terrorists themselves. Before Islamic State extremists beheaded journalist James Foley, his family and friends tried to raise millions of dollars for his ransom. The FBI, however, warned that paying ransom to kidnappers and terrorists is itself a criminal act amounting to illegally funding the kidnapping industry and terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless, we rarely prosecute families who pay ransom. Rarely do we criticize corporations doing business beyond U.S. borders that hire private negotiators to handle kidnapping cases and buy Kidnap Ransom and Extortion Insurance as part of prudent risk management plans. Why should Sony be treated so much more harshly for giving into the demands of the Korean hackers?

And what if the Sony hack was a serious breach of national security? National governments manage national security risks. The rest of us just do the best we can in our immediate circumstances . . . and hope that our security is managed by the right government. Sony set bad precedent by giving in to Korean demands. But Sony shouldn’t have to make national security strategy decisions any more than President Obama should be cornered into deciding for the whole nation whether Seth Rogen is funny.

Would more prominent government management of the Sony situation have meant National Guard troops posted at every movie megaplex screening “The Interview”? (Probably not.) Tax dollars spent compensating theatre owners for lost ticket sales? (Probably not.) Spiriting away James Franco to an army bunker in an undisclosed location? (Meh. Why not?) Nevertheless, it’s not fair to criticize a private actor for not doing what the U.S. government would have done, when the U.S. government could have taken the lead.

Tamara Tabo is a summa cum laude graduate of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the school’s law review. After graduation, she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She currently heads the Center for Legal Pedagogy at Texas Southern University, an institute applying cognitive science to improvements in legal education. You can reach her at tabo.atl@gmail.com.

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,