'The Interview' is a disgusting film and should be banned

As an introduction, I'd like to open with this food for thought:According to international law, there are four ways a state can lose its sovereignty(0.5). 1. Irresponsible development of nuclear weapons violating the non-proliferation act in letter or spirit2. Invading and aggression against other sovereign nations3. Genocide4. Playing hosts to terrorists North Korea has done all four. Firstly, you are drawing an obvious false analogy with Kennedy. The proper analogue would be a film about assassinating Obama. The North Korean government has already released videos of edited in-game and trailer footage of Call of Duty and a rocket ship video depicting the apocalyptic annihilation of the United States(1). This was done well before 'The Interview' began production. Secondly, this is not a a conflict-of-ideology issue. This is not a Vietnam, or a Cuba, or a China (all socialist regimes). This is not a Russia or an Afghanistan. This is a despotic, hermetic kingdom which has breached all of the possible conditions of sovereignty, including threating the use of apocalyptic weapons. If you want to talk about inflammatory, just read a DPRK statement about their nuclear proliferation, or examine their recent ICBM testing over Japan. As an extension of point two, it is critical to point out that ridicule is the most effective form of effecting change. DPRK threatened real terorist attacks in the US because of a movie. This is impermissible. They are not players in the international community, they are deliberately and purposfully scratching at the global fabric the rest of us have been trying to weave since the end of the second world war. They are stuck in an archaic necropracy and the people are suffering as a result. Showing not only the rest of the world, but the civilians in North Korea, the truth about their government, will be instrumental in finally effecting changing. George Orwell poignantly observed that, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". He is most certianly correct. The DPRK was established the same year that 1984 was published, and as the late Christopher Hitchens astutely noted, "It's as if someone gave Kim Il-Sun a copy of 1984 and asked if he thought they could make it fly". Thirdly, you neglect to include the fact that the movie is somewhat based on reality; Vice News took a trip to North Korea last year to meet Kim Jong-Un and they had a basketball clinic (2). In fact, even the part about the fake grocery stores is true; they smuggled video cameras into North Korea and you can see what it's really like, and how the people really are suffering at the hands of a malicious and corrupt government (3). As it happens, I think the film was poorly paced and not particularly funny. But the fact that it was still released in the face of intimidation, on a topic that desperately needs addressing, is an important indicator of something greater than contemporary political disputes. It highlights a changing world; social media and the Internet gave rise, at least temporarily, to the Arab Spring. People have hope. We can give the innocent North Korean people hope. I would also like to address your contention that Democracy won't work in the East by pointing to the pretty obvious example of South Korea. While I agree they aren't involved in many unrelated world conflicts (why would they be) they actually are in bed with the Taliban and they have tanks in the middle-east, check it out(4), (5). Also, what does 9/11 have to do with this? Finally, you are so very wrong about a film being an act of war. This is were supression and censorship starts. If a person is beheded for making a cartoon, it is the beheder's fault, not the cartoonist. If a police officer is shot for the actions of another police officer, it is the shooter's fault, not the police officer. If a man kils his daughter for becoming an apostate, he is to blame, not her. If a woman is raped for wearing revealing clothing, it is the rapist's fault. Blaming the West for terrorist attacks because of a movie is atrocious logical and no amount of Bush-adminstration spin-doctoring is going to get you out of that one. In summary, while I agree with your (frankly) trite observation that it was "maggot-filled American dog crap" (how very original), and I disagree that it was particularly funny (I found it rather boring) the point remains that banning this film plays into the censorship that you as a writer should be fighting against. It is a genuine expression of grivences about the mistreatment of a population of impoverished, downtrodden, Ingsoc-duckspeaking, Big Brother-loving people who deserve a chance at reuinification. This isn't just a clash of ideologies. This is a fundamental human rights problem, and it's one that the rest of the world shares. We are burdened by their fate. Their suffering makes our lives poorer. They have violated the terms of their sovereignty and this is why it goes from "not understanding a different culture" to a malignant mole on the skin of our fragile planet. ____________________________________________________(0.5) [. http://rationalwiki.org...](1) [] (2) [. http://www.vice.com...] (3) [] (4) [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] (5) [. https://news.vice.com...]