Freedom of n Expression o i s s e
r p p u S
The world questions the future of free expression following recent violence and government intervention. STORY AND LAYOUT BY SOPHIE NEDELCO, ELLIE SCHWARTZ AND SARAH HARRIS
O
live green magazine covers boasting “Je Suis Charlie” plastered all of Europe as 5 million copies of Charlie Hebdo sold out within hours, according to the New York Post. Following the murders of 12 people by Islamic jihadists over a previous issue ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, this cover was more than another work of satire. The issue stood not only for the remains of the freedom of expression that had been so violently attacked but also for resilient liberty. Around the world, freedom of expression is limited by terrorists and governments. While it’s almost impossible for Americans to imagine this threat extending into their own borders, west of Los Angeles in sunny Culver City, California, they experienced just that. All it took was a blank screen and a simple message to provoke even the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” into questioning where to draw the line and limit freedom of expression. The computers go black. The data is downloading miles away, but the theft isn’t noticeable yet. Someone is hacking Sony. It’s a thief that can’t be identified by security cameras or witnesses; this is a thief from over 9,503 km away. A North Korean thief. Within seconds the previously blackened screens reappear with crystal white skulls on them and a warning message saying “this is just the beginning. We’ve obtained all your internal data and warn that if Sony doesn’t obey [our] demands, [we] will release the company’s top secrets,” according to Deadline.com. The company was later faxed a message regarding their reason for their threats, the new Sony movie, “The Interview” and what they expected Sony to do with it. According to USA Today, the private message read, “Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for LE JOURNAL
14
FEBRUARY
instance, DVD or piracy,” adding “and we want everything related to the movie, including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website hosting them immediately.” Although at the time of the attack North Korea hadn’t been identified as the culprit, the communist country released a statement in early June of 2014 calling the movie “an act of war and an undisguised sponsoring of terrorism.” The country also called on the United States government and the United Nations to take down the movie, according to USA Today. After being approached with negative feedback from the beginning of making the movie, many wonder should they have published the movie knowing North Korea is hostile toward the United States and protective of their leader? “If they know something will be horribly offensive or radically offensive I think in some cases they have a responsibility to not publish that. We are trying to create a world where there is dialogue and respect and being offensive can often detract from that,” Theology teacher Alex Hall said. Furthermore, after the hacking made worldwide news North Korea called the attack a “righteous act,” according to BBC.com. Yet, the country continued to deny its involvement. After weeks of diagnostics on the hackings origin, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is certain it was someone in North Korea. “[The discovery of several Internet addresses] associated with known North Korean infrastructure communicated with IP addresses that were hard-coded into the data deletion malware used in this attack,” the FBI said in an interview with BBC. Days and weeks dragged on as the employees did work without computers, email or voicemail in fear of the hackers. Sony pulled the movie,
and several of the actors and actresses in the “Interview” cancelled public appearances. The country had succumbed to the North Korean threats. America had been bullied by another country. If America let one country dictate their liberties, who is to say another won’t try? Story continued on page 16
