17 hours ago, swheaties wrote
Sony made the right choice. It was their only choice really. They are a for profit company, remember. They cant endanger people's lives. They have to be more discreet.
EDIT: Craig_Matthews basically said the first paragraph about 7 hours before I posted this... the perils or not reading all the way to the end of the thread before replying!
First, the threats weren't made to Sony, they were made to cinema chains; I guess Sony cancelled the release for commercial reasons related to the fact that most cinema chains weren't showing it. The cinema chains aren't not showing it because of the threat to life and limb (which is probably only credible in a self-fulfilling fashion), they're not showing it because they're worried that if something does happen (most likely some nut job takes thinks this would be a good excuse for going crazy) they could be legally liable; IANAL so this may be valid reasoning, there's something seriously wrong with the law in that case though.
Second, this attitude scares me. If Sony are going about their perfectly legal and reasonable business of making satirical films we cannot hold them morally or legally responsible for the actions that people carry out in response to those films. If Mr. Animal Rights Terrorist tells Mr Medical Researcher that he'll bomb the university if Mr Medical Researcher keeps doing his research do we say that Mr Medical Research is somehow responsible for those bombings? Of course not. The attitude in the quoted post is an example of the worst kind of limp-limbed caving and kowtowing.
When you make the innocent responsible for the terrorists actions, so the innocent cave to their demands, the terrorists have won and you have lost your freedom.