This summer, when an attorney for actor James Franco sent New York’s People’s Improv Theatre a cease and desist letter regarding the venue’s planned presentation of the play James Franco and Me, PIT’s response was to cancel the booking. At the time, Kevin Broccoli, author and performer of JF and Me had no legal representation, and so the stories that emerged were that Franco had successfully shut down the production, as highlighted in numerous media outlets, including  The New York Times and Rolling Stone.

Among the organizations that stepped in to assist Broccoli were the Arts Integrity Initiative and the Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, and in August, DLDF secured the pro bono services of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine to represent Broccoli in an effort to insure his play could be seen. Yesterday, DWT responded in writing to Thomas Collier, the attorney at Sloane, Offer, Weber and Stern, who had sent the original cease and desist, asserting that it was without foundation and that Broccoli may present the play and companies may produce it under the protections offered by the First Amendment.

In a statement to Arts Integrity, Broccoli said, “I’m truly amazed at the amount of support my play has received since July when this story broke.  I’m very grateful to Davis Wright Tremaine, especially Nicolas Jampol and Kathleen Cullinan, who have been working tirelessly, and to Dramatists Legal Defense, who helped connect me with them.  Right now it appears that there’s an opportunity to do the play at several theaters across the county, including New York, and that’s really been my goal from the beginning.”

Jampol’s letter to Collier asks for a response within two weeks. The full text, with all legal citations and footnotes, appears below. It makes for fascinating reading and important information for playwrights.

*     *     *

We represent playwright Kevin Broccoli in connection with your client James Franco’s attempt to pressure theatrical venues into cancelling performances of Mr. Broccoli’s play James Franco and Me (the “Play”). In particular, we write in response to your July 7, 2017 cease-and- desist letter to the People’s Improv Theater, which resulted in the cancellation of several performances of the Play.

For the reasons explained below, we are confident that your client does not have any valid claim in connection with the Play. Contrary to the assertions in your letter, the First Amendment provides playwrights and other creators of expressive works – including both your client and Mr. Broccoli – with robust protection against the claims you threatened. Put simply, Mr. Broccoli does not need Mr. Franco’s permission to perform the Play, and will perform the Play as he desires. Mr. Broccoli also reserves the right to take legal action if your client continues to interfere with his contractual relationships with theatrical venues.

The Play

In the Play, a character named Kevin – which is based upon, and typically played by, Mr. Broccoli – sits in a hospital waiting room while his father is dying. The “James Franco” character stays with Kevin during the agony and tedium of awaiting a loved one’s fate in a lonely and impersonal waiting room. Their wide-ranging discussion tackles numerous topics like art, passion, sexual identity, and death, while engaging in a critical exploration of Mr. Franco’s films and television projects, including 127 Hours, Spring Breakers, Pineapple Express, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, General Hospital, Spiderman, Oz the Great and Powerful, and This Is the End, among others.

In addition to exploring Mr. Franco’s works, the Play parodies the public perception of Mr. Franco as a passionate, eccentric actor and artist who fully invests himself in his work. In one scene, for example, the “James Franco” character describes how he emotionally cut off his arm in preparation for his role as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours. In other scenes, the character vehemently disclaims any interest in money, highlighting Mr. Franco’s perception as someone who is not simply interested in pursuing projects for maximum financial gain – he believes in the art, and strives for something more than wealth creation.

Apart from examining Mr. Franco’s career and public perception, the Play also uses the “James Franco” character as a vehicle to explore Mr. Broccoli’s own feelings about life, death, his career, and his relationship with his father against the looming sense of mortality in the hospital waiting room. As one review explained, “this play becomes a kind of meta commentary on life, celebrity, loss, failure and friendship.”1

While not relevant to whether Mr. Franco could establish a valid claim against Mr. Broccoli in connection with the Play, the fact is that Mr. Broccoli is a long-time admirer of Mr. Franco and his work, and the portrayal is overwhelmingly positive. The Play specifically refers to Mr. Franco as “one of the most spontaneous and unique performers of his generation,” and explains that if Mr. Franco “stands for anything, it’s artistic simplicity.”

Mr. Franco Has No Viable Right-of-Publicity Claim

The First Amendment protects Mr. Broccoli from any right-of-publicity or misappropriation claim in connection with the “James Franco” character in the Play. Under well-established law, celebrities simply do not enjoy absolute control over the use of their name and likeness, particularly in an expressive context, such as a play.2 Mr. Franco has benefited from this principle in numerous of his works with characters that were based on, or inspired by, real people and events.

In Sarver v. Chartier, 813 F.3d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 2016), for example, an Army sergeant brought right-of-publicity claims against the producers of the film The Hurt Locker, which featured a fictional character that the plaintiff contended was based on him. In affirming the dismissal of the claims, the court explained that “The Hurt Locker is speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment, which safeguards the storytellers and artists who take the raw materials of life – including the stories of real individuals, ordinary or extraordinary – and transform them into art, be it articles, books, movies, or plays.” Id. at 905. Almost four decades earlier, in Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal. 3d 860, 862 (1979), Rudolph Valentino’s nephew sued over a television movie titled Legend of Valentino: A Romantic Fiction, a fictionalized version of his uncle’s life. In rejecting the claim, Chief Justice Bird wrote for the majority of the court in a now-widely-cited concurrence3 explaining that the First Amendment protected the film against plaintiff’s cause of action for misappropriation of Valentino’s name and likeness:

Contemporary events, symbols and people are regularly used in fictional works. Fiction writers may be able to more persuasively, or more accurately, express themselves by weaving into the tale persons or events familiar to their readers. The choice is theirs. No author should be forced into creating mythological worlds or characters wholly divorced from reality. The right of publicity derived from public prominence does not confer a shield to ward off caricature, parody and satire. Rather, prominence invites creative comment. Surely, the range of free expression would be meaningfully reduced if prominent persons in the present and recent past were forbidden topics for the imaginations of authors of fiction. Id. at 869.4

Without these critical protections, content creators would be required to obtain approval from any real person – or such person’s estate – depicted in a television series, motion picture, or theatrical production, which would allow them to veto controversial or unflattering portrayals. This would place a significant restriction on the marketplace of ideas and would have prevented the production of acclaimed films such as Spotlight, The Social Network, and Selma. As mentioned above, Mr. Franco himself is no stranger to depicting real individuals, including in Milk, Lovelace, and Spring Breakers, among many others.

Mr. Broccoli uses the “James Franco” character to comment on Mr. Franco’s career and public perception, while using it as a vehicle to explore Mr. Broccoli’s feelings about his own life and work, among other topics. In other words, in addition to dealing with a matter in the public interest – Mr. Franco and his career – the Play uses the character to enable Mr. Broccoli to “more persuasively, or more accurately, express [himself].” Guglielmi, 24 Cal. 3d at 869. See also Comedy III Productions, 25 Cal. 4th at 397 (explaining that “because celebrities take on personal meanings to many individuals in the society, the creative appropriation of celebrity images can be an important avenue of individual expression”). As a result, the Play enjoys broad protection under the First Amendment and against any potential right-of-publicity claim that Mr. Franco might assert.5

Mr. Franco Has No Viable Trademark-Infringement Claim

The Lanham Act and state trademark law do not exist to imbue trademark owners and celebrities with the unrestricted power to prevent the unauthorized use of their marks or names in expressive works. Instead, trademark law is “is intended to protect the ability of consumers to distinguish among competing producers, not to prevent all unauthorized uses” of a mark. Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info., 527 F.3d 1045, 1052 (10th Cir. 2008). Based on the Play, no reasonable viewer would be confused into thinking that Mr. Franco had sponsored or approved the Play – in fact, the Play makes clear that the “James Franco” character is a fictionalized version of Mr. Franco, and there is absolutely nothing in the Play that suggests or implies that Mr. Franco himself had any involvement in the Play. The implausibility of consumer confusion would bar any trademark-infringement claim here.

Even if Mr. Franco could somehow establish the elements of a Lanham Act claim, it would still fail because the Play is an expressive work entitled to full First Amendment protection. When a Lanham Act claim targets the unauthorized use of a mark in an expressive work, the traditional likelihood-of-confusion test does not apply because it “fails to account for the full weight of the public’s interest in free expression.” Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2002). Instead, such claims must pass the Rogers test, which bars any Lanham Act claim arising from an expressive work unless the use of the mark “has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). The Rogers test is highly protective of expression, and has since become the constitutional threshold for Lanham Act claims arising from the unauthorized use of marks within expressive works.6

The first prong of the Rogers test is satisfied if the alleged mark as any artistic relevance to the underlying work. See Rogers, 875 F.2d at 999. Courts have interpreted this requirement to mean that “the level of artistic relevance of the trademark or other identifying material to the work merely must be above zero.” Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1243 (9th Cir. 2013) (brackets omitted). The second prong of the Rogers test is satisfied unless the defendant’s work makes an “overt claim” or “explicit indication” that the plaintiff endorsed or was directly involved with the work. Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001 (“The title ‘Ginger and Fred’ contains no explicit indication that Rogers endorsed the film or had a role in producing it”). This requirement of an “overt claim” applies even where consumers mistakenly believe there is some connection between the mark owner and the expressive work. See, e.g., ETW, 332 F.3d at 937 n.19 (finding that a painting of Tiger Woods did not expressly mislead consumers despite survey evidence that sixty-two percent of respondents believed the golfer had “an affiliation or connection” with the painting “or that he has given his approval or has sponsored it”).7

Because the Play is an expressive work entitled to full First Amendment protection, the Rogers test would apply to any trademark claim Mr. Franco might bring. It is beyond dispute that Mr. Franco’s name is artistically relevant to a play that examines his career and public persona. Moreover, the Play does not make any explicit claim that Mr. Franco endorsed or was affiliated with the Play. To the contrary, Mr. Broccoli made clear in press interviews that the “James Franco” role would be played by different actors – not Mr. Franco8 – and never made any statement or suggestion that Mr. Franco sponsored or was otherwise involved with the Play. Accordingly, because the Rogers test is easily satisfied, the First Amendment bars any trademark-infringement claim by Mr. Franco.9

Mr. Franco Must Cease Interfering with the Exhibition of the Play

We request that Mr. Franco stop interfering with Mr. Broccoli’s right to exhibit the Play, and Mr. Broccoli expressly reserves his right to pursue a claim for such interference. Despite the fact that he can rightfully exhibit the Play without Mr. Franco’s permission, Mr. Broccoli is still an admirer of Mr. Franco, and is willing to engage in dialogue with him or his representatives regarding any specific objections he has to the Play or whether any particular disclaimer would alleviate Mr. Franco’s concerns. Like Mr. Franco, Mr. Broccoli is dedicated to his artistic craft, and despite his legal right to exhibit the Play without Mr. Franco’s permission, he would prefer to focus his time and energy on the Play, and not this dispute.

Footnotes

1 https://www.broadwayworld.com/rhode-island/article/BWW-Review-Unique-and- Hilarious-JAMES-FRANCO-AND-ME-At-Epic-Theatre-Company-20161121.

2 As one court explained in affirming the dismissal of a right-of-publicity claim arising from a film, “[t]he industry custom of obtaining ‘clearance’ establishes nothing, other than the unfortunate reality that many filmmakers may deem it wise to pay a small sum up front for a written consent to avoid later having to spend a small fortune to defend unmeritorious lawsuits such as this one.” Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox, 67 Cal. App. 4th 318, 326 (1997).

3 See Comedy III Productions v. Gary Saderup, 25 Cal. 4th 387, 396 n.7 (2001) (recognizing that Chief Justice Bird’s concurrence “commanded the support of the majority of the court”).

4 Chief Justice Bird also explained that it would be “illogical” if the First Amendment allowed the defendants to exhibit the film, but prohibit them from using Valentino’s name in advertising for the film. Id. at 873. See also Polydoros v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 67 Cal. App. 4th 318, 325 (1997) (holding that the use of the plaintiff’s name and likeness in a film was not an actionable violation of the right of publicity, and thus “the use of his identity in advertisements for the film is similarly not actionable”).

5 The transformative-use defense would provide another layer of constitutional protection against a right-of-publicity claim because Mr. Franco’s likeness is “one of the ‘raw materials’ from which an original work is synthesized,” and his “likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the defendant’s own expression.” See Winter v. DC Comics, 30 Cal. 4th 881, 888 (2003).

6 See, e.g., Cliffs Notes v. Bantam Doubleday Dell, 886 F.2d 490, 495 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that “the Rogers balancing approach is generally applicable to Lanham Act claims against works of artistic expression”); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 928 n.11 (6th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the Rogers test is “generally applicable to all cases involving literary or artistic works where the defendant has articulated a colorable claim that the use of a celebrity’s identity is protected by the First Amendment”); E.S.S. Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, 547 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Although [the Rogers test] traditionally applies to uses of a trademark in the title of an artistic work, there is no principled reason why it ought not also apply to the use of a trademark in the body of the work.”); Univ. of Alabama v. New Life Art, 683 F.3d 1266, 1278 (11th Circ. 2012) (expressing “no hesitation in joining our sister courts by holding that we should construe the Lanham Act narrowly when deciding whether an artistically expressive work infringes a trademark,” and applying Rogers to “paintings, prints, and calendars”).

7 Similarly, the Rogers court found that the defendants did not expressly mislead despite evidence that “some members of the public would draw the incorrect inference that Rogers had some involvement with the film.” 875 F.2d at 1001. The court explained that any “risk of misunderstanding, not engendered by any overt claim in the title, is so outweighed by the interests in artistic expression as to preclude application of the Lanham Act.” Id.

8 http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20161107/theater-review-intriguing-james- franco-and-me-at-cranstons-epic-theatre.

9 Any unfair-competition claim would fail for the same reasons as a right-of-publicity or trademark-infringement claim. See, e.g., Kirby v. Sega of America, 144 Cal. App. 4th 47, 61-62 (2006) (where First Amendment barred plaintiff’s misappropriation and Lanham Act claims, it also barred her unfair-competition claim).

Those who have followed the career of James Franco, and at times it has almost been hard to avoid, are aware that the actor had a period where he was a perpetual student, described in 2008 in Vanity Fair as displaying a “pan disciplinary omnivorousness.” He has a bachelor’s degree in English from UCLA, did graduate studies at Columbia, NYU Tisch, Yale and Brooklyn College, and has lectured at the UCLA School of Film, Television and Theater. Since English, writing and other creative endeavors were part of his studies, presumably along the way he might have learned a few things about the First Amendment, copyright law and the fair use provisions.

But whether this was a gap in all of Franco’s study, or whether it occurred while he was allegedly asleep in class (Franco denies that charge, on the basis of it being a bonus lecture), the creative dynamo and education addict seems to have had no qualms about shutting down a Cranston RI-born show, James Franco and Me, when it dared to book a short August run in New York at the People’s Improv Theatre (PIT). Multiple media outlets, attuned to covering Franco in his many ventures, briefly reported the creative censorship in July, including Salon and The New York Times.

Some reports at the time suggested that the play, by and starring Kevin Broccoli, was about Franco. Broccoli disputes that claims, saying, “In the show, it is stated that he’s fictional. It’s even suggested he might be an imaginary friend. Nothing that he says in the show is a direct quote of his. There are no quotes from any of his movies. As far as I know, nothing that ‘he’ talks about in the show actually happened in real life.”

Kevin Broccoli

“But the show is highly autobiographical on my end. So the really bizarre thing about this, for me, is it really does feel like someone’s not allowing me to tell my own story, because they want to prevent me from just using some celebrity’s name in something.”

It is well established that parodies of people are permitting under the fair use provisions of copyright law, though to be accurate Broccoli wasn’t parodying a written work, but rather playing with the persona of a public figure. Whether or not the show was funny or serious is irrelevant, since parody need not serve only comic purposes. Broccoli asserts that he has taken nothing specific from the public record of Franco’s life, only the idea of James Franco, public figure.

The cease and desist letter, from attorney Thomas B. Collier of Sloane, Offer, Weber and Stern was sent not to Broccoli, but rather to PIT, prompting them to cancel the James Franco and Me booking out of concern of being subjected to legal action. It claims, in part, Franco’s right of publicity, as well as asserting trademark violation and unfair business practice according to California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and California Civil Code Section 3344, which the letter quotes as follows:

“Any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on or in products, merchandise or goods for the purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products… shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.”

The New York statutes regarding right of publicity can be found here.

But Epic Theatre Company, Broccoli’s Rhode Island based troupe, never employed Franco’s voice, signature, or likeness (a local publication created an image juxtaposing Franco and Broccoli’s faces), and even if it did use his name, it wasn’t to sell a commercial product as meant by the statutes invoked. Artistic use falls within the First Amendment, which Mr. Collier omits, presumably to frighten PIT and through them, Broccoli and Epic. The letter, incidentally, concludes by asserting that it is itself a copyrighted legal communication, and therefore can’t be published in whole or part. More scare tactics.

With the threat of such action hanging over the show, Broccoli said he has been unable, to date, to secure an alternate venue. In fact, even when he remounts the show for a single performance this Saturday back in Rhode Island, he is excising Franco and calling the show __________and Me, because he can’t afford to defend himself from actions by Franco and his attorneys. He likens the show he’ll now perform, as a benefit for the ACLU, it to the internet parody “Garfield Without Garfield.”

What has taken place here is that James Franco and Me has been shut down because Kevin Broccoli and his company don’t have the financial wherewithal to battle a celebrity with considerably greater resources. His first amendment rights have been trampled because he isn’t wealthy enough to fight back, and so his play, at least in its original form, is silenced.

The situation recalls that faced by David Adjmi’s 3C, a dark parody of the television series Three’s Company, which was kept out of production following its premiere at Rattlestick Theatre by a specious claim from the rights holders to the original series, who claimed that, among other things, it would damage their opportunities for commercial exploitation of the then-35 year old sitcom in the live theatrical marketplace. In that case, Adjmi could not afford to fight the case alone, but was supported by the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine and by the Dramatists Guild and Dramatists Legal Defense Fund. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Adjmi and the play, which is now receiving productions – including, coincidentally, one last month at Epic Theatre.

Arts Integrity contacted Bruce E.H. Johnson, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine to ask his thoughts about the cease and desist letter sent to the PIT in regards to James Franco and Me.

“In my opinion, this claim is bogus,” wrote Johnson, in response to e-mailed questions, which included inquiries as to whether “right of publicity” laws come into play in this case.  “The right of publicity applies only to advertising and commercial use; it does not apply to a play, which is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.”

Johnson continued, “Any advertisements for a First Amendment product, like a play, are also protected by the same First Amendment principles.  From Steven G. Brody and Bruce E.H. Johnson, Advertising and Commercial Speech: A First Amendment Guide at 2-30 (2d ed. 2017): ‘The courts normally afford full First Amendment protection to advertising promoting speech in books, movies, and other fully protected media.’   And the fact that ‘tickets are being sold’ to the play doesn’t make it a commercial product.  This First Amendment principle was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), finding absolute First Amendment protection: ‘That The Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial in this connection as is the fact that newspapers and books are sold’.”

In Johnson’s assessment, “I can’t think of any situation where a celebrity sued for a fictional portrayal in a play.  Given the absolute First Amendment protection here, such a lawsuit would be immediately tossed out.” Broccoli notes that the New York Musical Festival was advertising a show entitled Matthew McConaughey and The Devil as part of their 2017 season. Woody Harrelson is also a character in the show.

It is particularly worth noting that James Franco and Me is not even the first theatrical piece to prominently invoke Franco. In Chicago, The Gift Theatre presented Under The Gun Theater’s Dear James Franco, an improvised evening of reading celebrity letters in 201, which was reviewed in Chicago outlets, including The Reader. Promotional copy in the Goldstar website read, in part, “Though the night is being called Dear James Franco, the letters are not necessarily written by or to the Pineapple Express actor, but judging by the hilarity of previously published open letters to Franco (as seen in Slate, Gawker and more), it sure wouldn’t hurt.”

But in the meantime, without the means to defend himself or his play, Kevin Broccoli is being – because he’s taking a creative approach in response to censorship he’s not equipped to fight – partially silenced. Perhaps someone or some firm with the legal resources and expertise will step up to challenge Franco, Collier, and his firm, because every time a groundless cease and desist is allowed to curtail the creativity of artists, the whole field suffers.

Of course, Mr. Franco is even a fan of performance art, and given his proclivity for perpetual learning, perhaps he can get a quick law degree and defend Kevin Broccoli from James Franco. That would be justice indeed.

As the Sony hacking case has played out over the past several weeks, it’s a story that has been relegated mostly to the business pages and, simultaneously, the gossip industry. With no one explicitly claiming responsibility for the breach of the entertainment giant’s computer system, the focus has been more on the corporate ramifications, placing it in business reports, and the stream of buzzworthy stories including the e-mails between Amy Pascal and Scott Rudin and the pontifications of Aaron Sorkin have been fodder for everyone from The New York Times to Entertainment Tonight. That the personal records of Sony employees past and present, including medical files, had been taken and released publicly didn’t seem to figure into the narrative in a significant way; it was just one more data hack (e.g. Target) that only hit home if it had happened to you now or in the past.

Of course, things escalated this week when a direct threat was made against theatres showing the Seth Rogen- James Franco film The Interview. The air of genuine concern rose yet higher when the U.S. government asserted that the hack had been engineered by North Korea in retaliation for The Interview’s depiction of an ultimately successful plot on the life of their dictatorial leader Kim Jong-un.

“Kim Jong-il” in Team America: World Police

Yet if my social media feeds are any indication, the vast majority of people, even this morning, find the whole situation slightly ridiculous and still worthy of snark. In the wake of theatre chains, and finally Sony, pulling The Interview from exhibition, the prevailing response seems to be inordinate attention to the Alamo Drafthouse’s (in Dallas/Fort Worth) decision to screen Team America: World Police, which a decade ago rendered Kim Jong-il as a literal puppet dictator, as well as jokes about Rogen’s affinity for smoking marijuana leading to an international crisis and this really being the fault of NBC for canceling Freaks and Geeks.

Kevin Smith in Live Free or Die Hard

I’ll admit to having paid minimal attention to the hack story until the combination of the threat against theatres and theatre patrons, the yanking of the film and the U.S. pointing its finger towards North Korea reached a critical mass for me. Like many, I’ve probably been lulled by too many years of watching action and espionage films in which there is always some megalomaniac trying to get rich or conquer the world, be it Dr. No or Dr. Evil. As for hacking, it’s always been made to seem a bit romantic and alluring (Sandra Bullock in The Net, Angelina Jolie in Hackers) or all-powerful yet benign (Kevin Smith in his mother’s basement in one of the later Die Hard films).

But now we’ve moved from the world of fictional espionage into a real life amalgamation of terrorism and blackmail. Yes, as many have pointed out, it’s questionable whether North Korea or any malefactor could carry out coordinated attacks in movie theatres across the country. But it would take only one such incident to genuinely terrorize the country, with social and economic ripples far greater than those felt after the movie theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Frankly, even if the perpetrator of the Sony hack was just bluffing, who’s to say that some copycat might not take the opportunity into their own hands in just one community? The very threat of terrorism is what has lifted the scenario into a much more troubling realm, and even if the ransom to be paid was the suppression of one film instead of one billion dollars, the result is that it worked, and set an awful precedent.

Any number of commentators, professional and amateur, have been quick to say that Sony “caved,” that they allowed the perpetrator of the threat to win, but that’s a simplistic response. Already faced with a massive economic hit from the data release, which will most likely continue, could the company risk being seen as insensitive to the threat, could it have taken the risk that there was no real danger? They’ve been in a no-win situation for weeks now, and no matter what choice they had made, it would have been seen as wrong. I’m not an apologist for their decision, but I can at least see them as having been given the proverbial Sophie’s choice.

I deplore what has taken place, which is a form of censorship by blackmail. Instead of providing a ransom to get something back, Sony has had to withhold something to, hopefully, eliminate any possibility of a violent reprisal. Their data is out of their control, never to be reined back in. And our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been infringed upon by some outside entity, even if it was Sony who made the decision to shelve The Interview.

The Death of Klinghoffer at The Metropolitan Opera

Watching a big corporation being hamstrung may seem pretty distant from the world of live performance, but it’s really not. The rhetoric surrounding the Metropolitan Opera’s production of The Death of Klinghoffer this fall, due to its supposedly anti-Semitic content, was marked with significant vitriol which never quite reached the level of threat, but still prompted major security measures to be put into place. Those with short memories may have already forgotten the threats against Terrence McNally’s Corpus Christi, which forced Manhattan Theatre Club to implement a range of protections from those who decried it as sacrilegious. No one found those scenarios funny, and even if protections were being taken against individuals and groups, rather than a government, even if each played in one theatre instead of 2,000, the parallels are there.

Kim Jong-un and Dennis Rodman

As of this morning, our government is reportedly weighing its choices on how to address the North Korean actions, even as some are suggesting that it isn’t North Korea at all, or if it is, it’s North Korea in alliance with other people or governments. There are hawks already taking verbal flight to cry out for retaliation, but its worth noting that while Sony is a Japanese corporation, Japan may be more cautious than we are, since North Korea regularly fires test missiles across their airspace, and who knows what their leader might do if provoked. We may find his flirtations with Dennis Rodman hilarious, but this is a country that has been ruled with a vicious iron hand for decades, a country where citizens have virtually no rights or freedom.

The era of digital warfare has sprung into full view with the Sony hack and The Interview’s suppression. No matter who’s behind it, it has proven that through the control of computers and information, not only with armaments, free will and basic rights can be bent all too quickly. While the hack is real, perhaps the threat is an elaborate hoax. Of the latter, we may never know with 100% certainty. But the question now is how does America guarantee its right to free speech against opponents both domestic and foreign, even when that speech is as inconsequential as I imagine The Interview to be.

Update, December 18, 3:30 p.m.: for those who saw Alamo Drafthouse’s plan to screen Team America in place of The Interview as a stand against censorship, I’m afraid you’re out of luck. Paramount has withdrawn that film from release as well, despite the fact that it’s a decade old. This is how the slippery slope carries us all downhill.