Sony hack becomes four-way war of words

President Obama, Sony execs, movie stars, and a North Korean official have all weighed in on who’s at fault in the massive computer breach at Sony Pictures Entertainment over the satire 'The Interview.'

Kevork Djansezian/REUTERS
A security guard at the premiere of the film "The Interview" in Los Angeles December 11. Sony Pictures canceled the December 25 theatrical release of its North Korea comedy after major theater chains pulled out of showing the film following threats from hackers.

The massive computer breach at Sony Pictures Entertainment over the satire ‘The Interview’ – allegedly the work of North Korean hackers – has become a major war of words over freedom of expression as well as security issues involving the Internet and terrorist threats.

All of this over a goofy Hollywood satire based on a ridiculous premise.

At this point, the sharp rhetoric over the Sony hack and its fallout is coming from four directions: the White House, Sony, Hollywood stars, and North Korea.

In his end-of-year press conference Friday, President Obama said Sony made a mistake in not releasing “The Interview” as scheduled.

“We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States,” Obama said. “Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like, or news reports that they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”

Sony Pictures Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton was quick to defend the embattled company.

“We have not caved. We have not given up,” he said on CNN. “We have always had every desire to have the American public see this movie.”

“The unfortunate part is in this instance the President, the press, and the public are mistaken as to what actually happened,” Mr. Lynton said. “When it came to the crucial moment … the movie theaters came to us one by one over the course of a very short period of time. We were completely surprised by it.”

He was referring to announcements this week by five major theater chains that they would not be showing “The Interview” for fear of a 9/11-type terrorist attack as threatened by the hackers now identified by the FBI as connected to the North Korean regime.

Sony said in a statement Friday that its decision to cancel the film’s release was only about Christmas Day.

“After that decision, we immediately began actively surveying alternatives to enable us to release the movie on a different platform,” the studio said. “It is still our hope that anyone who wants to see this movie will get the opportunity to do so.”

That seemed to be a reversal of the earlier statement by a Sony spokeswoman that the company “has no further release plans for the film.”

Hollywood personalities have been quick to weigh in.

In an email to David Corn at Mother Jones, actor and activist Sean Penn said, “By caving to the outside threat, we make our nightmares real.”

“This week, the distributors who wouldn't show ‘The Interview’ and Sony have sent [Islamic extremists] a commanding invitation,” Penn said. “I believe ISIS will accept the invitation. Pandora's box is officially open.”

In an interview with the trade site Deadline, fellow actor George Clooney urged Sony to "do whatever you can to get this movie out. Not because everybody has to see the movie, but because I'm not going to be told we can't see the movie. That's the most important part."

Psychiatrist, TV personality, and radio talk show host Carole Lieberman, who’s frequently quoted on film industry figures and issues, wrote that “To cower is to ‘greenlight’ future hack and terrorist attacks.”

“Although making the movie may have been a bad idea, it is an even worse idea to pull the movie from theaters and let the terrorists win!” Dr. Lieberman writes at thecelebritycafe.com. “We are now being seen as a cowering nation and terrorists from North Korea to the Middle East are laughing – and probably spoofing – us.”

In her online op-ed “Hollywood on the Couch,” Lieberman says Sony could release the film on DVD or via the Internet, suggesting that viewers make a donation to a charity or counter-terrorism organization.

Mitt Romney tweeted the same idea, suggesting that film viewers contribute $5 to fight Ebola.

Meanwhile, North Korea denies that it’s behind the cyber attack on Sony – sort of.

"There is not any connection," U.N. diplomat Kim Song told The Associated Press.

Mr. Song criticized the film but disputed his government hacked Sony and orchestrated the movie's shutdown: "It defamed the image of our country. It made a mockery of our sovereignty. We reject it. But there is no relation" to the hacking.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.