FOR a comedy, The Interview is proving to be quite the downer.

That is the inescapable conclusion when one looks at the volcanic mess surrounding the satire about Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea.

After the hack of Sony Pictures, the studio behind the movie, and threats against cinemas which would have shown the film, the picture's release in the US and elsewhere has been scrapped. Hollywood stars are dismayed, the US president has become involved, and the debate about freedom of expression is leading to such ugly terms as "cowardice", "un-American", and "morally treasonous" being hurled.

If you ever thought comedy was not a serious business, think again. Hollywood is having its Salman Rushdie moment, and almost three decades on from that furore, the ability of creative industries, and democracies in general, to cope with such challenges is as open to question as ever.

Had this story been a film, the pitch might have gone something like this. Two guys, Seth Rogen and James Franco, make a silly movie about the assassination of North Korea's leader. Shortly before its release, the studio's systems are hacked, leading to the leak of some embarrassing emails touching on such topics as unequal pay and the talent or otherwise of stars. There are some seriously red faces, and it is not over yet.

In the second act, the hackers, who call themselves "The Guardians of Peace" then begin to issue threats to cinemas preparing to show the film. "Remember the 11th of September 2001", they say. The cinemas quake, a premiere is cancelled, and days later the picture is pulled from general release. Cue industry-wide crisis of confidence. How does it end? We don't know yet, but one idea is for Saturday Night Live to aim nukes at Pyongyang. Think Dr Strangelove meets 30 Rock.

It is natural to raise the old eyebrows when Hollywood dares to stick its pedicured toe into political matters. This is an industry built around make-believe. What is the rest of the world meant to make of it when Hollywood takes a stand on anything? Yet motion pictures are up there with television as one of the key influencers of our times. What happens in Hollywood does not stay in Hollywood; it travels the world, shaping opinions, changing perceptions, reinforcing prejudices or blowing them away. On many a major issue of the last 50 years, from Civil Rights to the treatment of people with Aids, from political corruption to economic wrongdoing, Hollywood has helped to change hearts and minds. It is not all Dumb and Dumber and Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. At times, granted, most obviously during the era of McCarthy and the blacklist, parts of Hollywood actively colluded in undermining the very freedom the industry is meant to champion. The importance of the movie business as a force for societal good should not be exaggerated, but it should not be dismissed so easily either.

Which is why any threat to its freedom to operate should be taken seriously, and why a united response to such pressure has to start taking shape. At the moment, the business is doing a passable imitation of one of The Three Stooges' slap-happy routines, aiming pokes and prods at each other. Among the first to point the finger was Aaron Sorkin, creator of The West Wing and writer of The Social Network, who attacked the media for reporting the hacked material. "Let's just say that every news outlet that did the bidding of the Guardians of Peace is morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonourable," said Mr Sorkin. For him, this was a question of privacy and what was right for one being right for all. It should be pointed out that Mr Sorkin features in several of the leaked emails.

Talk about taking aim at the wrong target. Of course the media were going to pick up on the leaked emails. Besides being a prime example of the very definition of news - something other people don't want you to know - their contents were a central part of the story, one of the main reasons why it mattered. Here was an attack on a major corporation, but here also was an insight into the workings of one of the world's biggest industries. The media did not perpetrate the hack, they reported it as a free press should. Or should the media, in the interests of preserving freedom of speech, start censoring itself? There are limits enough on the liberty of the press without adding more.

Mr Sorkin is on firmer ground when, in common with stars from Ben Stiller to Steve Carell, he mourned the decision to scrap the film's release, saying: "Today the US succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished, bedrock principle of free speech." One can understand, to some extent, the reactions of the cinemas and the studio. If they had ignored the threats and something did occur, they would have been accused of being irresponsible and putting profits before public safety. Then again, it is the job of the police and other agencies to assess threats and protect the public.

As the temperature of this argument continues to rise, it should not be forgotten who the real villains are here. It is the menacers who are in the wrong. Whatever their motives, whoever they are acting for, the threat to freedom of expression originates with them. The industry can do nothing about the hack now - other than beef up its security systems - but it can decide how to respond to such threats in future, because this will not be the last. The bully boys, having scored this sick victory, will come back for more. Different cause, different means, perhaps, but the malign intention will be the same.

It should be recalled that the last major comedy to upset the North Korean leadership was Team America. The 2004 satire had a go at pretty much everyone, the US government most of all, but it was only Pyongyang which called for a ban. In the UK, A Clockwork Orange was pulled from cinemas after it was linked to violent incidents. Crucially, however, it was the film's director, Stanley Kubrick, who took that decision. His art, his call. Team America was a comedy triumph, A Clockwork Orange eventually made it into cinemas, and is now hailed as a classic.

Times change but principles should not. What is most concerning about The Interview row is that it will shut down criticism of North Korea and its ilk. It is possible, make that highly desirable, for fiction to shine a light on such grim corners of the world, as the Pulitzer Prize jury did in 2013 when it gave an award to Adam Johnson's The Orphan Master's Son.

In that case, the world did not stop turning, the publishing industry carried on, the public continued to buy books. Freedom of speech prevailed. Silly comedy or straight drama, there is a serious matter at stake here. The battle over The Interview appears lost. There will be others, though. And when they happen, show business needs to demonstrate it means business when it comes to free speech.