Sony’s initial decision to cancel the movie release was hasty and unethical. The private information released shouldn’t have prompted such a violation of a basic human right: freedom of speech. Some can argue that the movie release could have cost lives, since there were some violent threats, but we are the United States of America. This country enjoys expert intelligence in counter terrorism and superior military technology. So why did Sony feel vulnerable? Their decision is unethical because it can easily set a precedent for more to be encouraged in attacking the U.S., and expect a weak reaction.
Sony employees are without a doubt entitled to privacy, but the second the send button is pressed, everyone knows our words are protected by a very thin wall. a firewall. And let’s be honest, hacking isn’t a new trend or a problem. It’s prominent, it’s out there, it takes over our lives, the very reason the anti virus industry is booming. Because of this, we have the professional and social responsibility to use caution using the internet and social media. Kerr confirmed that because every aspect of our world is interconnected wirelessly, one can dream of remaining anonymous, because “it is a thing of the past”.
Americans value privacy dearly, it is the very substance that protects us from an overpowering government. (Though that has been heavily debated since the freedom of information act and NSA’s monitoring of phone calls) Hodges confirms “without some degree of privacy, civilized life would be impossible” But with the speed in which our lives have been lifted to an unknown, floating and invisible world wide web, it has become increasingly difficult to contain.
The movie and its message, though fictional, prove to be very political. could have Sony used an alias for the president and avoid many issues, yes. Would the movie have made just as much projected profit? Absolutely! So what was Sony’s message in all this? many believe this propaganda was started internally. Some can even argue it’s a form of an art. The author’s attempt to be artistically free to create the story. It is after all ethical for an artist to have the right to expression. unrestricted expression. But the meaning of art has been debated for hundreds of years. Philosophers, artists and politicians alike have yet to agree on its meaning, it simply means some different to each and everyone of us. Plato called poets the rebels of the first orders, he didn’t trust the power of the artist, he feared the influence of art in its simplest forms. To contradict Plato, Tolstoy affirms that art is humanistic, it is the means in which the artist delivers his message, experiences and feelings.
In the press, Sony felt alone, the media was shameless, merciless and took advantage of every rumor. And to add insult to injury, the film industry and the government sat back and watched it all unfold. It is but ethical and an undeniable responsibility that the motion pictures association serve as the very support system Sony and its people needed. Their governmental influence could have come in handy in making the decision to release.
It is unethical to release the hacked information. It is but a desperate move by the news outlets. As Sorkin said, none of the information leaked threatened anyone’s life, mislead the public or harm anyone directly. Juicy details of someone’s private life should remain for the tabloids or the real housewives shows. The need for privacy ethically balances the common good in society, before it should be considered as an individual right. (Christians, 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment