Rodney Hide: Fight for free speech

Angelina Jolie was described as a talentless "spoiled brat" in hacked emails.

It was news that thrilled the world: movie producer Scott Rudin describing Angelina Jolie as "a minimally talented spoiled brat".

The truth was out, the embarrassment glorious, the take-down comforting. The headline rocketed around the world.

But behind the titillation was something dark and sinister.

Sony's computer system had been hacked and emails, business information and the private records of tens of thousands of staff stolen. Rudin's derogatory comment was taken from a hacked email.

And the hacker? The US Government stated its belief that North Korea was "centrally involved".

Kim Jong Un. The tyrant certainly took exception to Sony for making a film called The Interview featuring him.

North Korea's state news reported his Government promising "stern" and "merciless" retaliation. His UN ambassador complained that the movie was "the most undisguised sponsoring of terrorism as well as an act of war".

Sony was unmoved. So too the UN.

And then the hack. And then the threat of terrorist attack against cinemas. Cinema chains pulled out, the movie was dropped.

The tyrant won.

Sure, the movie has since had a limited release in cinemas and been released online. But Sony has been crippled, the US humiliated and free speech dealt another blow.

George Clooney called it correctly: "We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty."

What's next? The tyrant wanting to dictate news? The hackers' success will only embolden them and others. What happens if news networks come under fire because of how they report news?

What is it about free speech that makes it so easy to toss away? We don't give in when hostages are under threat. Why give in when they aren't?

It's not the first time. Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses.

Muslim fanatics in 2006 rioted and attacked diplomatic missions and killed dozens in the wake of a Danish newspaper publishing offensive cartoons.

There was a great hullabaloo in each case and each instance produced precisely the chilling effect that the oppressors desired.

Newspapers and publishers don't need the grief. Authors don't want to become targets. Our freedom to reason and debate is bit by bit eroded.

We don't have to agree with the movie, the book, the cartoons to defend and to stand up for them. Free speech is not saying only what is politically acceptable or what we agree with. It is about being offensive and controversial. It means standing up for people to have the right to say things we disagree with.

That's what makes reason and debate possible and ultimately the progress of our ideas and knowledge.

My mother taught me the right response to Kim Jong Un. If you don't like it, don't watch it. And likewise the message for the rest of us: there's a big principle at stake.