Every now and then I have 2 cents in my pocket. This regards the recent uproar concerning the film The Interview and North Korea. Title: Why its totally incoherent,inhumane, and all say it.. downright un-American if you think the The Interview and its promoters are entirely faultless and that the problem here is *merely* the threats from North Korea and the supposed threat to free expression. Disclaimer: In no way am I proposing here that the cyber-threats and or any other malicious activities coming out of North Korea in relation to this film are justified. What Im arguing here is that regardless of North Koreas response, it is ethically problematic to endorse this film. The issue : Making a comedy/action film in which the plot explicitly depicts the murder (or attempt at) of a non-consenting individual who is currently alive. I did some very brief research on American law in regards to the issue of portraying real people in films: If your project portrays one or more recognizable, identifiable living persons, you should obtain a life rights agreement from all such persons, to remove the risk of a lawsuit based on their rights of publicity, defamation or invasion of their privacy. Otherwise, you may find it difficult if not impossible to obtain the necessary errors and omissions (E&O) insurance you will usually need to distribute or exhibit your film or play. (Online information from Michael R. Blaha- Los Angeles Entertainment Law Attorney) Wait a second??? Isnt this passage saying that it is completely consistent with American law that film portrayals of non-consenting individuals are at risk of lawsuit AND the loss of their right to distribute or exhibit the film in question. That is because in this country, we believe people have the right to protection from violation of their privacy and defamation of their person. Im not going to waste time to argue whether portraying someones murder could constitute defamation of that person and/or breach of their privacy. Ill simply point out that assassination of character is a common legal term that refers to slander on the basis that slander is likened to taking away someones life. Ill also add that the person being portrayed in The Interview made it known very early on that he did not consent. Now, Sony says they stand by filmmakers and their right to free expression. Let me ask Sony-and anyone one else claiming that free speech is the issue here-a question: Would you be saying this if the film included a plot about the murder of any currently alive American person who explicitly did not consent to its production ? NO, you wouldnt. Hopefully you wouldnt because its simply a nasty thing to do. But more to my point: You wouldnt because we have LAWS that would find such a film a breach of a persons RIGHTS such that the producers of this film could get their pants sued off and lose their right to show the film. In other words, according to our own laws, free expression DOES NOT protect this kind of portrayal in the case of non-consenting, currently alive individuals. Obviously, the person in question isnt under our laws- but thats beside the point, unless you think Americans are the only people deserving of having their human dignity protected.. But to be honest, I personally dont even think you should need to consider the law to know if whether you think this kind of thing is ok. Thought experiment: I want you to imagine that you have just discovered there is a major film being released that includes the explicit likeness of you or someone you love being violently murdered on screen. Is this something you really think freedom of expression/speech should protect? So what is the justification for this garbage? Is the answer simply that the person in question is not worthy of the human dignity which our own laws would protect? Or is it only Americans that are worthy of dignity? Are rights related to HUMAN rights or do we really just think these rights ought to belong only to Americans? Or perhaps its alright to portray this guys murder because he has objectionable political ideals and has committed very unethical acts himself? Perhaps what is so objectionable about him is that his political ideals and behaviors do not respect human dignity, and that he would deny people the legal rights that we in America are so grateful and proud to have....for instance, like the right to take legal action against someone releasing a film portraying your gruesome murder against your consent....see the sickening hypocrisy! The issue is not about politics, its about very basic human decency. It doesnt matter if the film involves an ironic critique of America as some reviews have reported. Why should such an ironic critique excuse the badness of the act in question? Especially since the person whose murder is being portrayed *is not in on the joke*. In conclusion, there are a lot of problems with this situation, and it ought to be pointed out that one of them *is this film*. If you agree that you should be protected from this kind of film portrayal, and if you agree that rights have to do with human dignity and not just the dignity of your national posse, then you shouldnt endorse this film either.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:58:21 +0000