My Take on The Interview

I find myself fairly annoyed when someone says something patently stupid, or absurd, or hurtful (bigoted, misogynistic, racist), and, when called out for it, instead of retreating, apologizing, they double down, shouting 'Free Speech!' “I'm standing up for Freedom of Speech!”

Er, no.

When the First Amendment was penned, they were thinking of protecting the sorts of speech that could be silenced (and often had been, through imprisonment or worse) by those in power: Criticism of actions, Truth (that others wished to remain hidden), Alternative Viewpoints. They realized that a democracy could not long endure if potential candidates could be silenced before elections could take place.

Now, one of our improvements on the original thinking is the growing understanding that power also resides in locations other than our government: Corporations have power, Employers have power, Religions have power, even the Wealthy have power (although the Robert's Court seems intent on willfully ignoring this fact.) Protecting our ability to Speak Truth to Power, of bringing criminal activity to light, has led to a broadening of the sorts of speech that cannot be retaliated against. (Whistle-blower protections are a specific implementation that comes readily to mind.)

All of these thoughts have been rolling around in my mind as I've watched the unfolding brouhaha over the release, retraction, limited re-release of the movie “The Interview”. When Sony retracted the movie, many were shocked, claiming that it was a direct hit to artistic freedom, to free speech. Upon its limited re-release, many of those interviewed have acted like they are some sort of admirable patriot, standing up for freedom. I think they are wrong: Sony's actions vis-a-vis “The Interview” have nothing to do with freedom of speech. They have to do with ethics (or a lack thereof). An ethical person would not have made such a movie.

Have you ever noticed the disclaimer at the start of every work of fiction, or the end of every such movie? “The characters and events portrayed are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental...” By creating a work of fiction, artists are freed to explore actions that are taboo or criminal. By not tying the events or the characters to actual people, specific people are not called out, their reputations neither questioned nor harmed. Plus, there is a big difference between exploring the idea of killing an individual, with its attendant consequences, and writing about killing a specific, actual individual.

Here's where I have a beef with the movie and with the actions of those surrounding it. If someone were to text “I'm going to kill so-and-so”, we would not take that as something to be ignored under the guise of free speech. We would grow concerned, and probably call for a police investigation. If, upon investigation, the police uncovered detailed plans on how the first individual would carry out the deed, we would see that as proof of criminal intent, and call for prosecution.

I know. “The Interview” is not proof of Seth Rogan's intent to kill Kim Jung-un, nor proof that Mr Rogan has murderous thoughts. But, by calling out a specific world-leader, rather than a fictitious entity, Mr. Rogan has made it ambiguous. Those of us who believe assassination to be a criminal act expect any movie exploring such themes to take them seriously, (the upcoming movie American Sniper appears to take this tact), or, if satirized, to at least fictionalize the story enough that we can tell the creator agrees with us.

We certainly wouldn't stand by if, for instance, Bollywood were to release a movie depicting (even comically) an attempted assassination of President Obama. It would be much easier to see that has crossed a line, and is not the sort of movie we would like to see made.

Calling into question the ethics of “The Interview”, even motivating against its release (and hopefully, against anyone who would make such a movie in the future), is not an attack on either free speech nor artistic expression. It is simply indicating that there should be ethics that are adhered to, that there is a gulf between speaking truth to power and depicting (attempted) violence against an actual person.

Agreed: The actions of the hackers were particularly ham-fisted and criminal, and I would like to explore that (and its fall-out) in a little more depth (later). But just because someone acted criminally to call out the stupidity of some speech doesn't make the speech any better, any more legitimate. “The Interview” is still perverse, and not anything that should have been said.

A Citizen's Dilemma

As an individual, I'm fairly certain that I will benefit from the recent Citizens United ruling. As an employee of a corporation in a sector that does substantial lobbying to get laws passed to its benefit, it stands to reason that I will benefit also. Those favorable laws and actions keep employment and wages in this sector high, likely increasing my future income. So, in my role of individual, my best interest lies with maintaining the status quo.

However, as a citizen, I worry about the distortions that occur when money is used to amplify demands upon the government - especially when those amplifications are unequal, sometimes brought about by sector profitability that in turn is enlarged by increased sector lobbying. I might easily take up the argument, presented by Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism, that only citizens have the right of free speech, and all political contributions should have to come directly from a citizen's income (after tax, take home pay!) - and that as non-citizens, businesses, corporations, non-profits, foreigners - in short, any entity that is not directly a citizen of the country, cannot make contributions nor lobby our government.

So, instead of the corporation for which I work being able to take company profits and lobby the government for more favorable laws to maintain and increase those profits, I would have to do so myself (if I thought it worthwhile), or perhaps pool with my fellow employees and do so.

Since it would be straightforward to assume that laws will be passed (under this second idea) that prevent a corporation from making contributions by funneling the money into an employee's hands with the purpose of passing on to lobbying, this sort of regime should level the playing field, and allow those in society that don't have access to such deep pockets a greater voice. That, in turn, should create more even laws across all sectors of our society, but the effect may be that in my particular sector, the reduction in lobbying power will curtail future profits, and perhaps my future wages (fn1) also (or, more likely, future wage growth).

So, we have a citizen's dilemma: How does one choose between courses of action when the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the citizen? What is the moral basis for determining which is the correct decision?


(fn1: Those who know me and my work my find it unlikely that the outcomes will be much different, i.e., Neither outcome is likely to see me flirting with either poverty nor riches, nor would it for most individual/citizens. The likely difference is probably just a few percent over many years, so the moral arguments will have to be similarly nuanced and subtle. However, one can easily see that for some individuals in our society, the difference in outcomes is much larger, and hence the personal dilemma they face.)