
An Offer to Sony from 2600 - jamesbrewer
http://www.2600.com/?q=content/offer-sony-2600
======
kyledrake
The last time people got this crazy about a hack, Kevin Mitnick was thrown in
solitary confinement for months because they thought he could "whistle nuclear
launch codes into prison telephones". 2600 made the documentary about it,
Freedom Downtime, and I strongly recommend watching it if you never have.

So what if North Korea did it (of course I'm skeptical of this, anyone with a
computer can conduct the same activities, with the motivator of trolling the
entire world for fun). It's not a big deal, it's not something that requires
US presidential intervention. It's not even remotely as big of a deal as the
CIA torture report that just came out. The CIA report threatens our legitimacy
as a world power. The Sony hack just costs a corporation some money, maybe
(free publicity FTW). Big. Deal.

If this is the worst a hacker can do, I'd love to see all future wars replaced
with hacking. I'll take that over agent orange and torture any day.

This sad, sick notion that hackers are terrorist enemy #1 and this is the most
important thing governments should be working on is, like this movie will
probably be, shitty fiction, a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by
Hollywood in movies like War Games that make it look like we're all going to
be nuked thousands of times if we don't stop the Hacker menace. Help me change
the media's perception of hacking before we start throwing more whistleblowers
and e-graffiti artists in prison.

TLDR: Sony got hacked, too bad, learn a lesson and fix your computer security,
let's not start WW3 over it shall we?

~~~
downandout
_> The CIA report threatens our legitimacy as a world power. The Sony hack
just costs a corporation some money, maybe (free publicity FTW). Big. Deal._

It is a big deal actually. Sony and these movie theaters taught the world that
US businesses are so risk averse that they will give into any threat -
credible or not. The crazies will now come out of the woodwork. Not every
business will give in, but the volume of threats and the disruption they cause
will vastly increase.

A foreign dictator just told the US population that it isn't allowed to see a
movie he doesn't like (false flag conspiracy theories aside - sometimes things
are exactly what they appear to be). I am not sure how anyone can think this
isn't a big deal worthy of presidential intervention.

~~~
encoderer
Sony is not a US Business...

~~~
a3n
> Sony is not a US Business...

Yep, it sure is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment)

"Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (SPE) is the American entertainment
subsidiary of Japanese multinational technology and media conglomerate Sony."

~~~
encoderer
The studio takes their direction from Japan-based Sony. Japan, in fact,
required changes to The Interview assassination scene to tame it.

~~~
a3n
Nevertheless, it's an American company, subject to and benefiting from
American law enforcement. They are a relevant company for the FBI.

------
zaroth
Sony CEO Michael Lynton says Sony still wants The Interview to be seen and is
considering their options. Those include DVD and Blu-ray home video, YouTube,
VOD, and other digital platforms but “there has not been one major VOD
distributor, one major e-commerce site that has stepped forward and said they
are willing to distribute this movie for us.” [1]

Hackers to Sony: We'll stand down if you never release the movie.... "Now we
want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of,
for instance, DVD or piracy. And we want everything related to the movie,
including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website
hosting them immediately." [They] warn the studio executives that, "we still
have your private and sensitive data" and claims that they will "ensure the
security of your data unless you make additional trouble." [2]

Imagine Sony putting it on BitTorrent with a pre-roll asking viewers to donate
money to a charity of their choice through a micro-site they setup to track
how much has been given. Or something.... This is actually a moment in history
where Sony could truly shine.

But back in reality, whatever is in those held-back stolen docs, they probably
need time to prepare for the fallout. If they can stall the remaining doc
release by stalling the movie release, they can buy themselves some time. In
the meantime, the audience for the film is growing daily, but I think will
peak and fall if they wait too long.

[1] - [http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-president-obama-the-
intervi...](http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-president-obama-the-interview-
response-1201330799/)

[2] - [http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-
interv...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-
interview/index.html)

~~~
jarcane
Sony _owns_ several digital release platforms.

If they want this movie out, they could make it happen tomorrow.

This is just PR speak. They might cave and release anyway, but Lynton's
statement is deliberately weak and duplicitous, once again attempting to
deflect all blame from themselves rather than admit to any mistake on their
part.

~~~
zaroth
I'm not sure they are in complete control, although it's a great image of
master manipulation to imagine they are. I'm waiting until I really understand
the whole story to start assigning any blame.

I'm more interested at this point in figuring out what this means for the
future. Do we live in a world now where state-actors will target specific
_companies_ and basically try to rip them to shreds and extort them? Now I'm
supposed to personally defend my company and my network against _state-
sponsored_ targeted persistent threats?

It should be possible to lock down individual machines which aren't ever
supposed to be networked. That's hard enough. I'm personally of the belief
that any networked device is ultimately hack-able up to the physical
constraints of the network. It's all about how much it will cost an attacker
to gain access, and how much they can steal once they get it.

If governments start routinely sponsoring these attacks, I'm very concerned
the cost-levels we impose today are 5 - 6 orders of magnitude too low, and the
network bandwidth 5 - 6 orders of magnitude too high, to deter these types of
attack.

~~~
thefreeman
The thing is that from what I can tell this attack is not even in the same
order of magnitude as the state sponsored attacks you are referring to.

I haven't found a good write up on the attack, however my understanding is it
was mainly due to Sony's lack of security and not the prowess of the hackers.

This was something like SQL Injection and non password protected excel files
with employees social security numbers. The state-sponsored APTs you are
talking about are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of custom software
engineering.

However I agree with your general premise that another government essentially
blackmailing one of our private companies is worrying.

~~~
tmzt
Whatever else there is one thing I'm sure of: we won't let any facts get in
the way of Cybergeddon 15.

------
jgwest
Too much condescending tone in this "proposal"...

I think people just want to see the film. I certainly want to see the film. It
might have a crappy plot or a second-rate screenplay or subpar acting, but
with this sort of publicity none of that matters. Just watching it will be an
event, perhaps an even bigger event than watching The Last Temptation of
Christ was way-back-when...

Anyway, Sony seems to be in a defiant stance. It doesn't seem like Sony is
going to yield; it seems like they are going to just find an alternative
distribution path: _" No thanks, 2600. We got this. After all, this is the
sort of hype that we'd... uhh... kill for.... uh..."_

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Just watching it will be an event_

That brings up a good point. Perhaps Sony should even consider using the
controversy in its marketing, then later make claims about how much more
successful the film was than projected, thanks to the added publicity (which
will almost certainly be true).

Not only would it show defiance, it would underscore the paradoxical effect of
trying to stifle free speech in this manner. And, that might provide the
biggest disincentive of all for future prevention: demonstration of
ineffectivness.

~~~
srj
What has lead you to believe that free speech is any consideration in Sony's
dealings? This is the company that has (and still does) push for SOPA and
CISPA-like abilities to take down websites with the most minor effort!

It's unclear why the release was canceled. Maybe Sony wants to just put this
whole thing behind them. Maybe they want to curtail any further leaks that
they feel may be worse. Perhaps the executives feel that being a victim of a
foreign nation absolves them of any culpability and they're playing that card
to the greatest extent they can. But I highly doubt they're going to make any
about face on a policy issue and are still very much against free speech as
far as the internet is concerned. If anything this incident will be used to
bolster their arguments and to that end maybe it has worked out better for
them than "The Interview" ever could.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _What has lead you to believe that free speech is any consideration in Sony
> 's dealings?_

Call it artistic freedom if you'd prefer. It's all a form of free speech and
I'm not sure that Sony has ever come out against artistic expression.

Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that the shoe is on the other foot now.
That point, of course, is essentially the main premise of the article on which
we are commenting, and it's what makes the situation so sweetly ironic to its
author(s).

But, you know, it's all P.R. and all about messaging (from both sides). Sony
doesn't have to really believe in free speech for everyone in order to make a
stand on that premise. They are surely aware that standing on their right to
make a profit probably wouldn't engender as much support or be as effective as
standing for artistic freedom, free speech, etc.

And, of course, all of this discussion about what to call it is pedantic,
because my bigger point was that they have an opportunity to turn this on its
head and have it completely backfire on the attackers, thus providing strong
disincentive for future attacks.

> _It 's unclear why the release was canceled._

I think it's pretty clear that, at least in part, they were tired of having
their asses handed to them. In short, they were punked.

------
coding4all
I still have a hard time believing NK did this without any definitive
evidence.

Wasn't it last December that NK was sending fax messages to communicate with
SK? Now they can download Terabytes from Sony without anyone noticing?

~~~
jrockway
I also feel that it would be super-easy to just nullroute North Korea and be
done with this "state sponsored terrorism" in about three seconds.

~~~
briandear
Many NK attacks also originate in China.. Many Chinese hacks also originate in
China come to think of it..

------
ibejoeb
That was a thoughtful offer from the folks over at 2600. I had this little
internal dialog beginning, "what a conundrum would Sony find itself in had it
it instead been a threat?" I thought it was a silly thought, but then, I
really started to wonder what the Sony response would be. It would have a
group threatening them--supposedly--if they do release the film, and another
threatening the same consequence if they don't. To whom do you yield, Sony?

------
atmosx
I don't get it. Doesn't sonny have the money to hire people like Spender, D.
Hartmeier, etc. To secure their network?! To they need a _hacker community_ to
secure their network?!

I mean it's obvious that they don't care about security or that they do care
but they value flexibility more, than tight security. Either way I don't
understand the nature of the _offer_ , maybe it's pure irony and I missed it.

------
junto
I guess a movie about two brave maverick North Korean TV stars heading to
Washington to assassinate Obama, the evil emperor of the United States could
also be a 'funny' comedy movie to watch.

Seriously though, while the plot of the film is both purile and offensive to
the North Korean dictator personally, should NK be behind the attack on Sony
(im still not convinced) then it is definitely an ulterly inappropriate
response.

Problem is, and this is a genuine question, how should they have responded? Is
the western media, specifically the US media going to publish a written
complaint from NK? Probably not right. I'm not justifying their response in
any way, but would be curious to know if they have any way at all to complain.

I'm playing devil's advocate here before anyone starts assuming I'm some NK
sympathiser. I too would like to see the NK people freed from the tyranny and
death camps they currently live under the constant threat of.

~~~
atmosx
> I guess a movie about two brave maverick North Korean TV stars heading to
> Washington to assassinate Obama, the evil emperor of the United States could
> also be a 'funny' comedy movie to watch.

Except from the fact that it's a boring script, I don't see nothing wrong with
it and I'm pretty sure that you an do a movie like that anytime you'd like in
the US. I'm pretty sure the government will not send _hackers_ to attack the
studio... For making fun of any figure. In the _late night show_ the host
makes fun of virtually everyone and anything. Satire shows pretty much the
level of a democracy.

ps. Consider that I'm very critical of the US gov. But it's absolutely nowhere
near N. Korea if that was your point.

~~~
junto
No, that wasn't my point. My point that the film picked a target where it
doesn't matter if it offends.

The film studio quite deliberately decided not to make a film about
assassinating Vladamir Butin, or Angela Derkel.

I also find such a plot puerile. That was my point. Also read my original last
sentence.

------
k-mcgrady
Very little content here. Seems more like self-promotion and a silly offer
that Sony would be stupid to take. Why let someone distribute the movie for
free when they spent over $40m making it and can (worst case scenario) put it
on a website they build and charge $10 to everyone that wants to watch it?

~~~
tehansen
im still hoping its a very genius marketing campaign...but either way, setting
the movie free (not as in beer) would send a powerfull message. cant think of
a better xmas gift to humanity right now...

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "cant think of a better xmas gift to humanity right now..."

Saving people who want to see a movie $10 is the best gift to humanity you can
think of? (jk) It would definitely send a message but considering the loses
they've already made from this + the hack they need to exploit the situation
and make as much money as possible.

------
chintan39
Finally, real hacker news :)

------
Rapzid
If Sony can't find a distributor they should start taking Visa on their site
and offer direct downloads, watch the dollars start rolling in, and get their
first exposure to a business model they should have been pioneering 10 years
ago.

~~~
agnsaft
Who in their right mind would give their VISA to Sony at this point?

~~~
zaroth
I know I'll get downvotes, but seriously, I'm crying I'm laughing so hard
right now. So true.

------
runn1ng
Not sure what is this trying to say.

"if you want to put it online, you can put it on our website full of anti-
governmental rants"

Ummm... All right. If Sony wants to put it online, they will find other ways.

------
websitescenes
This would be awesome but so very unlikely. I Suspect that Sony exaggerated
the threat and cancelled the film as a publicity stunt. Was it a real attack?
Sure. Is the film cancelled forever? Highly doubtful. Sony is way too profit
oriented to let this opportunity pass and they certainly are not going to hand
the film over to the hacker community and loose out. That said, I think that
2600 releasing the film would be AWESOME!!

------
FabianBeiner
Paulo Coelho, world famous novelist, also made a neat offer:
[https://twitter.com/paulocoelho/status/545465796202606592](https://twitter.com/paulocoelho/status/545465796202606592)

~~~
jordigh
Not too surprising, since he advocates "piracy":

[http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-
re...](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-readers-
pirate-books)

------
nomercy400
So, the threat is to expose private and sensitive data retrieved in the hack
when The Interview is leaked? Who says The Interview wasn't obtained during
the hack, and will be leaked by the same party issuing the threat?

~~~
happyscrappy
The goal, which is working so far, is to prevent the release of the movie. The
movie should be released because fuck whoever did this. Sony may be hated for
good reason but not releasing only encourages this type of thing.

------
chrischen
The threat called for retribution even if it is leaked.

------
geophile
Isn't this two not really related events being conflated?

1) Sony gets hacked. A big hack, but just a hack.

2) Sony pulls a movie because it offends a nasty dictator identified by name.

Why are these connected? It's not as if they learned about the movie from the
hack? I've seen the ad for that movie a few times, and I'm pretty sure that
the spymasters in North Korea can watch the same Seinfeld reruns that I do.

Why is the ridiculousness over Sony pulling the picture (PR stunt or not) at
all related to the hack?

~~~
joeguilmette
What don't you get?

Sony got hacked, the hackers said if you halt release of the film we'll stop
releasing your private data.

The release was cancelled, the hackers stop releasing private data.

It doesn't take a data scientist to put those two together.

~~~
geophile
But the movie was pulled over concerns about terrorism, not embarrassing
revelations:

[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/sony-north-korea-
the-i...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/sony-north-korea-the-
interview-113655.html)

Sony left the decision up to the theater chains, and those chains were
reported to back away from the movie because of the legal liability if there
were a terrorist incident.

------
jorgecastillo
I won't be adding much to the conversation but I really feel I need to say
this. If Sony doesn't release this film I am not buying a Sony product ever
again.

------
tehansen
how much money have they spent on this movie? If people pitch in world
wide...how much money does HN think it would take for Sony to "sell" this
movie to the public.

------
briandear
Funny how the U.S. government goes nuts over an offensive YouTube video or
Koran burning video, but suddenly Obama's administration calls out Sony for
"making a mistake" for caving to (allegedly) North Korea? Does anyone else
find this to be a double standard? We can "offend" North Korea, but if we
"offend" Islam, then somehow that's different? I say let's offend everyone.
That's what free speech means.

~~~
zaroth
I think Terry Jones burning a Koran is starting to get into the "you're
putting peoples lives in danger just to prove what a ridiculously pompous ass
you are" camp.

There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a
theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling
fire" territory.

But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read
that. I think it's tone-deaf for Obama to call out Sony. First of all, it was
the theaters not Sony who refused to show it. Second of all, it was the FBI
who told the theaters they couldn't guarantee they weren't going to get hit by
terrorists on Christmas. What?!

Yes, the capitulation is absolutely shocking and terrible. That's what Obama
should be saying. But victim blaming? It's like blaming the kidnapping victim
for doing what they're told so they don't get hurt. Sony still has a gun to
their head, they are still being actively extorted!

Edit: @icebraining set me straight.

~~~
icebraining
_Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire"
territory._

No, no it's not. It's an insensitive, assholish and petty action, but it does
not constitute an incitation to immediate violation of the law, including but
not exclusively because it was announced beforehand.

~~~
zaroth
Incitement to crime -- speech that spurs another to commit a crime -- is just
one of 6 categories of speech which are not protected.

The other five main exceptions to free speech protection include; Defamation,
Obscenity, Sedition, and...

Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those
which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate
breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling
"Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a
reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or
harm to others.

The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a
"compelling government interest," such as national security. This standard is
extraordinarily strict and hard to prove, making it a rather narrow exception
to free speech.

[1] - [https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-
what-c...](https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-can-you-
say)

I _thought_ that the courts would look at it under this 6-part framework and
they might possibly decide, under the facts and circumstances of Terry Jones
for example, that it falls under "fighting words" or maybe some kind of hate
speech.

But now I've read up more on Terry Jones and what actually happened, and,
you're right, the consensus was it was protected speech.

Pulling an Obama quote from Wikipedia;

President Barack Obama was asked on September 9, 2010, on ABC's "Good Morning
America" about the Quran burning controversy. He said, "You could have serious
violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the
recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in
American cities or European cities." He said, "I just want him to understand
that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our
young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're
already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's
making." "I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is
completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been
built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama
said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he
listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act
that he's engaging in.” Asked if the event could be stopped, Obama replied,
"My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning … but that's the
extent of the laws that we have available to us."[42]

~~~
icebraining
Considering that flag burning is infamously declared legal, it'd be hard to
justify banning Quran burning on "fighting words" grounds.

------
connie_lingus
_The CIA report threatens our legitimacy as a world power._

no it does not...almost everyone in the world understand that under certain
conditions, torture to get potentially life-saving information is just the way
of things.

let me put it this way...if your immediate family was going to be blown up in
two hours, wouldn't you say go ahead and torture that guy who you KNOW has
information on how to diffuse the bomb?

~~~
wmeredith
Your premise is pure fantasy. There was never a ticking time bomb scenario.
And torque is NOT an effective means of extracting information. Everyone from
Napoleon to Hitler to our own Military generals have aid as much.

Here's a good article on the subject: [http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-
lay-scientist/2010/no...](http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-
scientist/2010/nov/04/2)

~~~
maroonblazer
>And torque is NOT an effective means of extracting information.

Then how do you explain this case in Germany where simply threatening torture
resulted in the perpetrator divulging the location of his victim:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-
germa...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-
debating-police-torture.html)

~~~
aaronbrethorst
The key distinction is that in this case it was a matter of

    
    
        simply threatening torture
    

Torture would not have produced more useful results, and may have actually
produced less useful results. _Threatening_ it, on the other hand, seems to
have worked.

The issue with the CIA torture scandal is that you have a bunch of guys who
may or may not know anything. These guys are interrogated, and, probably,
disclose everything they know. Then, the higher ups at the CIA, acting on the
authority of Cheney[1] and Bush[2] required that the guys being held—who may
or may not know anything more or at all—be tortured to extract more
information.

At this point, the guys being held who may or may not know anything are going
to start telling their 'enhanced' interrogators anything they can in order to
stop what's happening to them. It doesn't matter if it's real or fake.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/09/dick-cheney-
def...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/09/dick-cheney-defends-
torture-al-qaida) (and it's important to note that the Senate report on this
subject revealed that torture had _nothing to do_ with the discovery of bin
Laden's location.)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-bush-knew-about-cia-
tortu...](http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-bush-knew-about-cia-torture-says-
cheney-2014-12)

~~~
maroonblazer
Maybe, but consider: instead of someone like the person in the article, the
perpetrator is a member of a radical fundamentalist organization who believes
that death is better than life and is not so put off by the prospect of some
discomfort, at least in theory. It's conceivable that once theory is put into
practice he might rethink his position.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
That's completely, verifiably wrong.

    
    
        The Senate report has a revealing passage saying that
        the statement of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM")
        "during his first day in CIA custody included an
        accurate description of a Pakistani/British operative,
        which was dismissed as having been provided during the
        initial 'throwaway stage' of information collection
        when the CIA believed detainees provided false or
        worthless information". KSM was later water-boarded
        (simulated drowning) 183 times, leading him to make
        frequent confessions that later turned out to be false.
        Another section of the report says that "KSM fabrications
        led the CIA to capture and detain suspected terrorists
        who were later found to be innocent".
    

[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/torture-it-
didnt...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/torture-it-didnt-work-
then-it-doesnt-work-now-9923288.html)

------
tehansen
I pledge to pay Sony 1 BTC if they let this happen.
[https://twitter.com/hansent/status/546273749163466753](https://twitter.com/hansent/status/546273749163466753)

~~~
yourad_io
That's a noble sentiment, but unfortunately the GoP also took sony_wallet.dat

I kid, but this hack was pretty damn deep.

------
__m
If Sony wanted to release the movie they probably wouldn't miss the chance of
making money with it so this proposal sounds rather stupid. There is no
differentiation between Hacker and Cracker in public media. Get over it.

------
q2
Let us relook the issue here. Is it hackers attack on Sony or Sony making a
movie on North Korean ruler(as I understand) or both?

Every human/culture has likes,dislikes ...etc and every one expect others not
crossing those lines for peaceful co-existence. In democracy, no doubt, there
is freedom of expression but if that expression is uncomfortable to other,
then there is responsibility to control/prevent that expression rather than
brazenly going ahead ignoring sensitivities of others.

If the story line as I understand from mass media is, assassination of North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un and if North Korea protested it, then Sony should
have understand and accommodated the sensitivities of North Korea and stopped
making this movie. It is not censorship as President Obama noted.

People on HN voiced concern on NSA surveillance ...etc, since many felt
privacy/anonymity is violated...etc. Just like you have sensitivities, North
Korea too has sensitivities and it is natural to expect, others to understand
them. Whether it is, dictatorship or democracy and their relative
merits/demerits is different point of discussion.

I am neither supporting hacker's attack on Sony nor North Korea but Sony in
first place, should have considered the sensitivities of other cultures, even
if they are alien to your culture and act accordingly, given the story line.

Arts should further enable the stability or peace on earth and you may not
achieve peace by hurting sentiments of others.

~~~
nicobn
I understand the sentiment behind your comment but applying this doctrine does
more good than harm.

The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not
exist in free democracies. Everything should be open for debate, discussion,
parody, etc..

Not producing a movie because someone might feel insulted by it and then throw
a temper tantrum is censorship by proxy in its purest form. The tyranny of
sensibilities may be justified by humanitarian arguments (i.e.: "peace on
Earth" !) but it is, more often than not, a disguise totalitarian doctrines
take to silence opponents.

The fact that this attack allegedly comes from the last Stalinian regime - the
worst dictatorship still in existence - certainly points to a totalitarian
motive.

~~~
acmecorps
> The right to not be offended, quite simply, does not exist and should not
> exist in free democracies

Genuine question: Why is that?

~~~
elwin
Because a right not to be offended requires a power to suppress offensiveness.
The right to life and the right to property would be meaningless if murder and
theft were decriminalized. In the same way, a right not to be offended implies
that offensiveness must be punished.

The power to suppress murder is a relatively small power, and its limits are
easily determined by laws and courts. A power to suppress offensiveness would
be broad and vague, capable of suppressing anything anyone might object to.
Since taking offense is so subjective, it would be difficult for this power to
be administered by a neutral third party. It would be prone to abuses.

A right not to be offended requires an arbitrary power incompatible with
freedom.

