So, I have been seeing lots of commentary about how the hacking of Sony and the resulting pulling of the movie as a result of online threats is a "bad precedent".
I agree.
But I am hearing considerably less talk about another "bad precedent" . . . making a feature film about the assassination of a real person.
What about that?
So yeah, I get it. Freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. It's a comedy.
But still.
A movie whose entire premise is the (hilarious?) attempted assassination of a real live human being.
I personally wonder how such a project was ever green-lighted in the first place when it would have been so easy just to make up a fictional character that was really close but not the same.
And as a side note, I would also like to take this moment to talk about "rights" and how certain groups (non-minorities in America) feel very entitled to them and seem "shocked" when the entire planet does not operate by the set of principles which apply (to some) here in the United States.
I bring this up, because often times, minorities (like myself) are told that even though we technically have certain rights, like the right to wear a hoodie, like the right to go places in the dark, like the right to free speech, or the right to build a mosque, we should probably not use those rights if in fact we want to continue living.
But if you tell a non-minority American that while they technically have the right to make a movie about the assassination of a living leader, it might in fact not be the most prudent path, the reaction is utter disbelief.
Like how dare someone tell me what to say or where to go or what to do.
And technically of course, they are so right, but meanwhile, back in the real world, everyone does not play by "our rules".
And those we once dismissed as powerless and laughable seem to be slightly less toothless than we imagined.
So what to do? Not wear a hoodie? Take our chances?
I don't have an answer . . . but I could not let the irony go by with out note.
Now back to our regularly scheduled lives . . .