>> "advocating assassination of a current world leader by name"
It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?
There was a 2006 British mockumentary, Death of a President, which depicted the death of President George Bush (in a much tamer fashion that the explosions in The Interview). The film was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Two U.S. cinema chains refused to screen it
There has been a long evolution by international organisations to pressure global culture into "respecting" their ideology. Islam is best known for this [1][2], but Russia, China and half of Africa and South America are on the side of the "global censorship"-cabal. Depending on whether it applies to religion (e.g. islam), political ideology (e.g. socialism/communism) or people (dictatorships, or royal family or ...) it refers to "defamation of religion" laws or ...
[2] Don't feel I have to include links, they'd detract from the discussion, but we all know the massive international protests and even murders against cartoons, films, books, ... that muslims keep throwing every 5 years or so.
(yes, it's called defamation of religions, but it covers a hell of a lot more than just religions. Mostly mentioning islam here because it's the driver behind these horrible laws)
But here's the thing Americans don't seem to understand. Number of people in favor of real freedom of expression* : 60% of the US, 5% of the rest of the world.
* irrespective of the subject, which excludes most of Europe. Europe is only in favor of freedom of expression where it doesn't interfere with religion, (some) policies, a few families, ...
I don't think the president would call for it to be banned, but I would expect protests, cries of racism, and possibly violence at theaters to follow even here in America.
Idoubt the latter, but sure, there would be a group of vocal detractors. That's the greatness of living in a free country; people are free to have their own opinions, but we still get to watch the movie of we like (or, at least, we used to be able to...).
My point was that of the group of 'vocal detractors', most of them are going to be the same people who are currently saying "Hey relax, it's just a movie, a comedy".
Hilary Mantel's short story was certainly controversial amongst the expected critics, but it was not "almost banned", or even considered for such a ban by anyone who could effect it.
It's a movie. It's make believe. There were two movies last year depicting the White House getting attacked. Were they advocating attacking the White House?