Opinion: Impact of Sony’s Decision to Cancel the Theatrical Release of The Interview

“We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States.”  These strong remarks by President Obama came in response to the decision of Sony Pictures to drop the release of its highly anticipated comedy, The Interview.   The movie focused on a comical plan to assassinate the leader of North Korea.   However, a group of North Korean hackers known as the “Guardians of the Peace” did not find the plot amusing and threatened “9/11 type attacks,” on theaters that screened the movie.  Facing threats of violence and terrorism, Sony canceled the movie’s theatrical release.  Almost immediately, the decision was met by widespread criticism from all sides of the political spectrum.  Many called Sony’s decision to pull the comedy as a blow to our nation’s First Amendment rights of freedom of expression and creativity and a win for terrorists worldwide.

Although Sony was within its creative rights to make the movie, the company made the right decision to cancel a widespread theatrical release.  Freedom of expression is not always met with tolerance and thus producers of controversial works must balance financial concerns with potential legal liability.  Foremost, a large number of theaters had made independent decisions to not screen the movie in response to the threats received by Sony.   Thus, getting a positive return on its $78 million project was not too promising for Sony.  More importantly, the legal and non-legal liability facing the movie studio far outweighed concerns for freedom of expression and creativity.  Legally, if the well-publicized threats had actually materialized and someone was hurt or killed then the movie studio would undoubtedly face criminal and civil liability as they were put on notice of a looming attack.  The cost of defending such lawsuits would also be financially devastating.  Likewise, the public backlash would have been far greater.  The moral outcry would have resonated across the globe, and people would have exclaimed, “This could have been prevented if the movie was never released.”

Despite the potential legal ramifications there is a growing concern that Sony’s decision has set a dangerous precedent.  Simply put, terrorists now seemingly have the power to halt the release of certain works by threatening violence if their demands are not met.  However, this concern is misguided.  Terrorists make demands on a daily basis, and some are met while others are ignored.  In effect, governments bargain and negotiate with terrorists on a daily basis.  Thus, Sony as a private actor participated in a form of negotiation that is similar to what many international governments conduct to protect their own interests.  Other movie studios may follow Sony’s path if placed in a similar situation. But the reality is that Sony’s decision will not have the profound impact that many political and media pundits are expressing.  Movie studios will continue to make controversial works that will be met with threats and fans alike because Sony’s situation is not an anomaly and has occurred throughout our nation’s history.

Similarly, one of the most misapplied arguments in this debate is that Sony’s decision somehow infringed on the First Amendment rights of all Americans.  As Americans we hold our First Amendment rights both collectively and independently.  Collectively, we are given this right by being American citizens.  Independently, we have the freedom to broadcast or abstain from certain views as we deem fit.  In essence, Sony did not infringe on the First Amendment rights of Americans as a whole because we still possess the same power to exercise this freedom as we had prior tothe movie studio’s decision.  If anyone’s First Amendment rights have been infringed it is Sony’s.  Essentially, the media along with the government is trying to compel the movie studio to take a certain stance on an issue instead of letting the company exercise its own independent judgment.  Frankly, such coercion is at odds with the spirit and purpose of the First Amendment and should be condemned.

*Afzal Karim is a second year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law.  He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and African American Studies from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Upon graduation, he intends to pursue a career in business litigation.