The Interview – A case study in ethics & free speech

The Interview is a comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco about an entertainment reporter and producer who are recruited by the CIA to assassinate North Korea leader Kim Jung-un.  It is the first major motion picture from an US studio to depict the assassination of a living foreign leader.  Rogen and his collaborator, Evan Goldberg, pitched the idea to Sony in 2010 as Kill Kim Jung-il.  After Kim Jung-il’s death, the concept was reworked to focus on his son and new North Korea leader, Kim Jung-un.  It was smooth sailing at Sony until a teaser trailer was released in June. 

Yahoo Movies Jun 11, 2014 (Source: YouTube)

While some executives at Sony in Japan voiced their concern over the depiction of a violent assassination of a living leader, very few concessions were made to the original concept and working script. Later that month, the North Korean foreign minister released a statement that said in part:

The U.S. has gone reckless in such provocative hysteria as bribing a rogue movie maker to dare hurt the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK. […] Absolutely intolerable is the distribution of such film in the U.S. as it is the most undisguised terrorism and a war action to deprive the service personnel and people of the DPRK of their mental mainstay and bring down its social system. […] Those who defamed our supreme leadership and committed the hostile acts against the DPRK can never escape the stern punishment to be meted out according to a law wherever they might be in the world. If the U.S. administration connives at and patronizes the screening of the film, it will invite a strong and merciless countermeasure.

Sony studio co-chairman Amy Pascal relayed a message to Rogen and Goldberg that Sony’s executives in Japan were demanding changes. Again, very few concessions were actually made except for ‘softening’ the scene where Kim Jong-un’s head takes a missile strike and an agreement to delay the release from the fall to Christmas Day. Artistic expression won out over artistic accountability. (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 260) Rogen and Franco embarked on a publicity tour and all is well until Sony gets hacked.

Hackers breach Sony's system (Source: whoismcaffe.com)

The hackers post four unreleased movies (including Annie) to pirate video download sites online.  They also subsequently post internal files (38 million in total) from Sony including employee information and executive emails.  Two weeks later, a group named the Guardians of Peace claimed responsibility and issued their demand – kill The Interview.  On December 16^th, an email claims that violence will befall if Sony releases the movie:

Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made.

The world will be full of fear.

Remember the 11th of September 2001.

We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time.

(If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)

Once this email was leaked online, some theaters started pulling out of the Christmas day release.  Sony then canceled the release of The Interview amid complaints from major theater chains in the USA and Canada.  The next day, Sony issued a press release:

In light of the desire by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film […] we have decided not to move forward with the planned December 25th theatrical release.

Workers removing billboard poster announcing Christmas Day release
(Source: chicagotribune.com)

Almost immediately, Sony’s decision is met with staunch criticism of caving to terrorists (the hackers), to the loss of free speech, and to allowing outside interests to control them.  Everyone it seemed had an opinion including the US president:

“I think they made a mistake,” said Obama. “I wish they had spoken to me first. I would have told them, Do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

Was Sony’s initial decision to cancel The Interview ethically sound?  Sony should have applied Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance which asks decision-makers to examine the situation objectively from all points of view (pov).  If they had, they probably wouldn’t have catered to Rogen and Goldberg and made a living foreign leader the subject of an assassination plot.  

Hackers' threats escalate
(Source: everythinglubbock.com)

Sony also wouldn’t have pulled the movie in such a knee-jerk reaction to the leak of their own files.  The FBI stated that there were no credible threats of violence to the movie theaters and some outlets claimed that Sony pulled the plug before they could even object.  It would appear that in both instances, Sony was focused on their own needs/pov.  

Aaron Sorkin, a Hollywood screenwriter, wrote an op-ed, “The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press”, published by The New York Times that decried the press’ zeal in publishing Sony’s hacked documents.  Sorkin opined that there was nothing news-worthy in the leaded documents and that it was published because some details were ‘juicy’.   Is Sorkin right - did ratings trump ethics?  The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics state that journalists must:

• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.

Most of the people affected by the publishing of leaked documents were public figures. The ones most hurt were the rank and file employees who had their social security #’s and other personal information posted by the hackers. Journalists didn’t facilitate or repeat those details. 

Leaked spreadsheet showing Sony executive salary & bonuses
(Source: hollywoodreporter.com)

Salary information on the actors should be public and generally, it is widely reported.  Charlize Theron was able to negotiate a 10M$ raise after the gender pay gap was made public. The gender pay gap isn’t unique to the entertainment industry, it’s endemic to all industries in the US. The only instances where the pay gap is narrow is when salaries are public.  President Obama had introduced legislation to help close the gender pay gap; having actual evidence from a major corporation showing how widespread this issue is, is definitely news-worthy and deserves to be published. Part of the journalist code of ethics state that journalists have an obligation to “serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.”

Sorkin further believes that the Motion Picture Association of America along with the Writers Guild and the Directors Guild should band together and back up Sony, calling it a “NATO rule”.  Unfortunately, no studio or entertainment organization came to Sony’s defense.  Sorkin (and later actor George Clooney) was hoping that the philosophy of Communitarianism, where community interests trump individual interest in the quest for social justice, would be the catalyst for involvement.  Instead, it would seem that self-interest prevailed.

Sony reversed their decision in response to the criticism mentioned above.  They worked together with Google to get it released online and allowed independent theaters to pick it up for Christmas Day release.

Theater worker in Colorado updating the marquee
(Source: denverpost.com)

This move was heralded by many as a victory for freedom and free speech.  President Obama praised Sony for their reversal:

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, "As the president made clear, we are a country that believes in free speech, and the right of artistic expression. The decision made by Sony and participating theaters allows people to make their own choices about the film, and we welcome that outcome."

Mill’s Utilitarian Theory espouses that “in the utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one person for the benefit of the group”. (Patterson and Wilkins, p. 10)  In this case, the harm to Sony from further cyber attacks was deemed to be less important than free speech and artistic expression.

Similarly, Ross’s Pluralism theory states that there are multiple competing values, not one ultimate value, to be considered.  Freedom of speech is one value.  The interest of the public is another.  Other competing values include: Sony’s bottom line; the artistic expression of the entertainers; diplomatic relations; and common decency.

If Sony had utilized Bok’s ethical decision-making guidelines:

1. How do you feel about the actions?
2. Is there another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same goal that will not raise ethical issue?
3. How will others respond to the proposed act?

during the making of the movie, they could have avoided all of this drama.