CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
17
Yes No
Debate Score:21
Arguments:19
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

Hellno(17759) pic



Innocence of Muslims: Exception to Freedom of Speech?


Is the anti-Islam film trailer, Innocence of Muslims, the same as falsly shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects our freedom of speech but The Supreme Court has ruled that there are limits... does the speech lead to "Imminent lawless action".  Can an argument be made that this YouTube video does?

Yes

Side Score: 4
VS.

No

Side Score: 17
2 points

Devil's advocate speaking here: The dude who posted this video knew it would piss off the Islamic whack-jobs and now people have died because of it... Obama doesn't help, Our President just wants to apologize for America!

Side: Yes
1 point

Where has Obama apologized for America? I see this being spoke of only by republicans, which if it were true would make sense why democrats don't say it...

I've tried to find where Obama has apologized, and I've found several articles exposing it as republican propaganda to undermine Obama. I am however open to the possibility that Obama did apologize to other countries, but I have yet to find anything confirming this.

Side: No
1 point

I belive the suggestion arose from the egyptian embassy sending out a tweet along the lines of "Sorry if this movie offended you but we didn't make it, so please don't blame us."

And in true republican style, Mitt Romney, did no fact checking, we all know how the present republican party feel about facts, took this as an official goverment apology.

Side: No
1 point

YouTube has no obligation to follow it at all. They should follow their TOS, what each and every user agrees to. They have an agreement with the user. The user gives them the right to take down their videos for whatever the fvck reason they want.

Only a fool would say otherwise. If they don't like your video, too bad. They have no legal obligation to continue to provide their service to you if they object to it. Now we can get into moral/ethical obligation, but this a mater of legality.

Side: Yes

Bad actors, corny dialog and terrible green screen effects are not an exception from the 1st amendment .

Side: No
1 point

I'm not saying that it is but 'bad acting' etc has nothing to do with the question. Did you read the very short body I posted? I rarely post any serious debates. People have died and one could argue (not me) that this is akin to "falsely shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theater..." the person shouting knows there is no fire and is putting people's lives in danger... the Supreme Court has ruled that type of thing is not allowed. The creator of this video surely knew how his posting this on YouTube could turn out... remember that Danish cartoon mocking Mohammed?

Now, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here so don't jump all over me but I just wanted to clarify what the debate was... the quality of the video has nothing to do with anything.

Side: No
GuitaristDog(2548) Clarified
1 point

I know it isn't about the quality of the film.

Although it can be compared to yelling fire in a crowded theater, there are a few things I must add:

1. The film did not cause riots.

2. If offending someone does lead to violence than that is their problem, not ours.

But yeah, if I paid to see that movie I would riot.

Side: Yes
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

its not like they made a false claim, like falsely stating there is a fire nor is stating that Muhammad sucks an incitement to imminent danger, nor is it likely considering the large number of such publications.

Side: Yes

No. This video is protected by the first amendment in the constitution.

It is critical of Mohammed, and just because some muslims dislike it so much that they think people deserve to die as well as lighting buildings on fire, does not mean that this video does not fall under the protection of the first amendment.

If someone criticizes you, or your religion, you do not ever have the right to murder or vandalize or anything similar that would violate other people's human rights or freedoms.

Side: No
1 point

There's some really messed up things people feel the need to share with the world. I think they're just looking for attention ;)

Side: No

If you just make your own anti-Islam film, I'm sure your attention will skyrocket.

Side: No
modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

lots of anti-islamic films out there, this one just got promoted.

Side: No
1 point

No.

There was no immediate fire. You cannot arrest someone for shouting "I think there might be a fire in a theater somewhere at some point!" over the internet just because some morons take that as cue to set a real fire in a theater somewhere...

Holy shit my analogies get vague.

Anyway, the point is, yes, that guy's a douche and an idiot, and a horrible film maker. That does not justify murder and riot.

Side: No
1 point

If YouTube take it down someone else will put it up. Also if they take it down it will open the flood gates to all other offended religions. And there are a lot of nutty religions, scientology would have a field day ;-).

Anyway I think that everyone is been played.

some one is pissed off with how they where treated in their country of origin, blames the other sides religion. lights a fire hides the matches in a third parties house and watches as the whole town burns.

And the rest of us think, its just some religious nut, their's always going to be religious nuts.

Side: No
1 point

It's not the same.

There is only one intent when yelling fire in a crowded theater, and that is to cause chaos.

An expression of art may have many intents. But because it is perceived on a subjective level it may be offensive to some but not to others...but such is life.

Side: No
1 point

Mockery in this form is still freedom of speech.

We are not ruled or censored by the sensitive.

Is the creator of this film a dick? Most definitely.

Does this creator deserve his rights taken away or limited? No.

Imminent lawless action / clear and present danger refers to something/someone condoning/advocating a violation of a law or presenting a civil safety issue and being very likely to happen (like what anyone can imagine happening if you falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater). The film does but advocate a violation of our laws.

Side: No

The arguments have already been pretty well made... I just thought I should point out that if the Islamic world hadn't insisted on making a huge fucking deal out of this, feigning oversensitivity and reacting with violence as they are, nobody would even know about this piece of trash video. Now, thanks to their self-pity and petty grievance mongering, the video is getting worldwide attention and hundreds of thousands of additional views, and it will be noted and remembered (as will the Muslims reaction to it) for years to come.

Side: No