There's no question this must be excruciatingly difficult on the entire family.
The source said:
[Image via FayesVision/WENN.]
Many are attacking the decision as a loss of ground in the war for free speech.
We have to agree that giving in to the demands of terrorists sets a very dangerous precedent. Will our movies always have to meet the approved guidelines of those who would threaten violence?
Moreover, does this move make us even LESS safe??
Cyber security expert Peter W. Singer, author of Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know, believes that giving in to the threats was the worst decision possible.
"This is not just now a case study in how not to react to cyber threats and a case study in how to not defend your networks, it's now also a case study in how not to respond to terrorism threats.
We have just communicated to any would-be attacker that we will do whatever they want.
It is mind-boggling to me, particularly when you compare it to real things that have actually happened. Someone killed 12 people and shot another 70 people at the opening night of Batman: The Dark Knight [Rises]. They kept that movie in the theaters. You issue an anonymous cyber threat that you do not have the capability to carry out? We pulled a movie from 18,000 theaters."
That's a controversial comparison; the tragic shooting in Aurora was by a lone madman.
Then again, threatening innocent lives over a movie is pretty deranged in our book as well.
And the thought that this sort of thing will now continue is the scariest of all. What do U think about Mr. Singer's statements??
[Image via Sony Pictures.]