CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," that mocks and insults the Prophet Muhammad caused demonstrators to attack a U.S. consulate in Libya, killing one American, and breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
There is a difference between 'freedom of speech' and 'hate speech'. The video has absolutely zero literary value, or basis in reality. Its only purpose was to insult the prophet Muhammed, and the religion of Islam.
I don't support it being deleted, however, but every government of the world should have the option of whether or not to restrict access to the video in their country. Some governments have taken this already, and that is what I agree with.
Then you clearly do not know the importance of the first amendment. Yes, governments can block access to the video if they dislike it, but that does not mean they should. The governments that are blocking the video have no respect for freedom of speech. I do not know if the video is hate speech or not, I have not seen it. I do know that it is at least critical of Muhammed, and that is what the muslims take issue with. If anyone insults muhammed, they must be punished severely. In this case, punishment meant killing someone who had literally nothing to do with the making of the movie.
When Muhammed is insulted, they seem to think that the only logical solution is to kill people and light buildings on fire...there is no excuse for barbaric conduct such as this.
Yes, governments can block access to the video if they dislike it, but that does not mean they should.
I was referring to countries such as Egypt or Libya, where there are already significant protests taking place over the video. These are democratic governments, remember, they should do as their people wish.
The governments that are blocking the video have no respect for freedom of speech.
No, they simply have more respect for their religion. I can understand this, knowing many Muslim's personally.
I do not know if the video is hate speech or not, I have not seen it. I do know that it is at least critical of Muhammed, and that is what the muslims take issue with.
Watch the trailer, even if just for the purpose of being informed. It's not so much 'critical', it has him openly disobeying the Qu'ran, portrayed as a war-mongerer, a woman abuser, a homosexual, a slob, and essentially as the filth of humanity, with no basis in fact for most of this. Their offense is understandable.
If anyone insults muhammed, they must be punished severely.
I don't think all protesters are calling for the people to be killed, if that's what you're implying.
In this case, punishment meant killing someone who had literally nothing to do with the making of the movie.
Yeah, all the peaceful protesters definitely agreed with the attack on the embassy.
When Muhammed is insulted, they seem to think that the only logical solution is to kill people and light buildings on fire...there is no excuse for barbaric conduct such as this.
Again, you're ignoring the tens of thousands of Muslims who peacefully protested the video, and the billion+ who stayed at home, and did nothing.
I don't understand why people can't just say that both parties are wrong in this instance (not that I'm equating them either).
I was referring to countries such as Egypt or Libya, where there are already significant protests taking place over the video. These are democratic governments, remember, they should do as their people wish.
If the people care anything at all about human rights then they should not block this video even if it is critical or even insulting to people of Islamic faith. If they do not care about human rights, then let the people censor whatever hurts their feelings.
No, they simply have more respect for their religion. I can understand this, knowing many Muslim's personally.
Human rights are more important than religious beliefs. If someone insults your religion....did they physically attack you? Did they vandalize your house? No. All that's happened is the person's feelings have been hurt.
Now, imagine if someone takes away free speech. The government then has the ability to censor anything it deems offensive or it doesn't even need a reason, it can silence anyone. The erosion of personal freedoms is a step backwards, especially for a democracy. It's a step in the wrong direction, it gives the government a great deal of power that it should not have.
I don't think all protesters are calling for the people to be killed, if that's what you're implying.
I agree. I didn't mean to imply all protesters wanted the people to be killed. It's just the culture in middle eastern countries is particularly hostile towards any criticism of one's religion. In the U.S. and other western countries, people are far more tolerant towards criticism in terms of not killing and vandalizing property.
I don't understand why people can't just say that both parties are wrong in this instance
I don't think the person who made the video did anything wrong. He may or may not have known that his video would have sparked a reaction from the muslims, but that is irrelevant. The problem is that the muslims (not all, just the ones who murdered and vandalized) felt that instead of simply ignoring the video and going about their lives, they felt it was necessary to murder someone who had nothing to do with the video, as well as light a building on fire.
It is the muslims who overreacted here, the video maker didn't do anything wrong. He is free to make whatever videos he wants. If we punish the video maker and ban his videos, then we've set a legal precedent saying that any video that is potentially offensive to religions must be banned. This would be very bad for freedom of expression.
If the people care anything at all about human rights then they should not block this video even if it is critical or even insulting to people of Islamic faith. If they do not care about human rights, then let the people censor whatever hurts their feelings.
Blocking access to a single video is not 'not caring about human rights'. My claim was that the video has no value, it shall only offend, and when a government responds to the will of a people, I would expect these governments to ban access to the video.
I do not expect these governments and societies to be perfect - if people are offended, then there will be blowback onto innocents (as we saw in Egypt and Libya). I see the greatest good being served by saving these innocents from harm, rather than naively believing that the world is a utopia where we can say what we want without repercussions.
Human rights are more important than religious beliefs. If someone insults your religion....did they physically attack you? Did they vandalize your house? No. All that's happened is the person's feelings have been hurt.
Why is hurting peoples feelings not considered an issue to you? Why is physical harm the only bad thing you acknowledge? Mental/emotional harm is still harm. And also, as I have said before, Egypt & Libya are both democracies, their governments actions should follow the opinion of the people. And I feel that you would be hard pressed to find a majority that thinks that free speech should be given absolute priority to anything else - religious beliefs are very important to them, you see.
Now, imagine if someone takes away free speech. The government then has the ability to censor anything it deems offensive or it doesn't even need a reason, it can silence anyone. The erosion of personal freedoms is a step backwards, especially for a democracy. It's a step in the wrong direction, it gives the government a great deal of power that it should not have.
Ahh, a slippery slope argument. I reject that logic.
Secondly, you seem to have a large misunderstanding over what a democracy is. A democracy is a government which follows the opinion of the masses, essentially. If that society wants its government to take away its rights, there is nothing undemocratic about this. This is a society that wants to be prevented from blaspheming, and while I worry about those who do not want this, it is perfectly democratic for the government to do so.
He may or may not have known that his video would have sparked a reaction from the muslims, but that is irrelevant.
The film was made to intentionally insult the Muslim religion, their sacred prophet Muhammed, and to spark a reaction from the Muslim community. That is a serious moral intransigence.
The problem is that the muslims (not all, just the ones who murdered and vandalized) felt that instead of simply ignoring the video and going about their lives, they felt it was necessary to murder someone who had nothing to do with the video, as well as light a building on fire.
I agree that this is a problem, but not that it is exclusively an issue here. Why can't both be wrong? And the people that murdered the US ambassador were not doing it in protest, they were a terrorist group who took an opportunity, just so you know.
the video maker didn't do anything wrong. He is free to make whatever videos he wants. If we punish the video maker and ban his videos, then we've set a legal precedent saying that any video that is potentially offensive to religions must be banned. This would be very bad for freedom of expression.
Do you think there is nothing I could say, to anyone, in any position, that would be morally wrong? That freedom of speech supersedes all moral considerations? That it should take an absolute priority in society? If not, then you've agreed that there is a case for censorship.
This does not mean that everything offensive to certain people should be censored. It does not mean that 'we', as a wider community, should follow their lead. It does not mean the end of freedom of expression. It just shows that we have some responsibilities when we produce things that could affect other people - a point that I do not think that you really disagree with, if you really think about it.
Blocking access to a single video is not 'not caring about human rights'.
It's censorship, and complete disregard for freedom of speech. They're blocking a video simply because they find it offensive. Based on that logic alone, they could block any video they deem offensive. Does this mean they will do it? No, it just means that by their current logic they could block anything they deem offensive. I actually did watch the full video, I can see how it is insulting, but honestly I found the video to be so horrendously made that it was hilarious to watch. It's so stupid that I laughed at it. It looks like some high school film project. I've seen better special effects on Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide.
If you have this mentality of "the great good being served" by eroding away rights, then it's no wonder we're in the situation we're in now with the NDAA and the Patriot Act.
Why is hurting peoples feelings not considered an issue to you? Why is physical harm the only bad thing you acknowledge? Mental/emotional harm is still harm
Hurting people's feelings is an issue, but not in this context. Did the movie maker force the islamic people to watch his video? He did not. The islamic people watched his video by their own free will.
The governments of Libya and Egypt are not democracies. Egypt is a republic. Libya currently has some type of interim government with the goal to become a constitutional democracy by next year. There is a difference between republics and democracies. So while the argument you proposed may hold merit with Libya, it does not hold merit with Egypt. In any intellectually advanced society, free speech should be one of the highest levels of importance. Just because the majority disagrees that does not belittle the importance of free speech.
Ahh, a slippery slope argument. I reject that logic. Secondly, you seem to have a large misunderstanding over what a democracy is.
Eh, I don't think it's a slippery slope argument. I didn't say it would definitely happen. I questioned the logic in which they are choosing to ban the video. They are banning it because it is offensive to them. By that reasoning they could ban anything they wanted to under the veil of offensiveness.
As for the democracy part, I will cede that I did have a misunderstanding there, but I have done more research into the exact definition and accompanying features of a democracy. So you are correct in saying that there is nothing undemocratic about it. I think my misunderstanding came about from the average layman's use of the word as well as the media using the word democracy as a word synonymous with the ideas and values of freedoms that america values so much in its constitution.
The film was made to intentionally insult the Muslim religion
If someone made a film or video insulting atheism, or Christianity, should we ban those videos too? What about Bill Maher's documentary called Religiosity? Many people found Bill Maher to be offensive, even in the movie some people would get pissed at Bill Maher for "insulting" or "disrespecting" their faith. Should we ban it because it insults religious people?
I agree that this is a problem, but not that it is exclusively an issue here. Why can't both be wrong? And the people that murdered the US ambassador were not doing it in protest, they were a terrorist group who took an opportunity, just so you know.
Perhaps the guy who made the video was morally wrong (I don't think it was morally wrong myself), but constitutionally speaking his video was protected. Do you have a link about how it was a terrorist group taking the opportunity to assault the embassy? I don't doubt you, i am interested in hearing about this...
Do you think there is nothing I could say, to anyone, in any position, that would be morally wrong? That freedom of speech supersedes all moral considerations? That it should take an absolute priority in society? If not, then you've agreed that there is a case for censorship.
Off the top of my head, disregarding any things like shouting fire in a movie theater, I would say no. So long as the moral considerations are not illegal, then I believe that free speech should supersede any moral considerations. I am open to changing my mind if you can come up with a situation that would challenge my position. Therefore, I have not agreed that there is a case for censorship.
I know it does not mean the end of freedom of speech, but I do stand by my position that it is a step backwards for the countries that chose to censor the video. I do think we have responsibilities in what we produce, but I don't think it should be taken to the extent that we need to appease a certain group in the process.
The film was made to intentionally insult the Muslim religion, their sacred prophet Muhammed, and to spark a reaction from the Muslim community.
I disagree. I see it as a purposefully overdone caricature of real and just criticism of the Muslim world. And sometimes the truth can come across like an insult, if you're sensitive enough.
Take the opening scenes, for example. It shows Egyptian police standing by and doing nothing while barbaric Muslims slaughter Christians and vandalize their property. Well, during the Arab spring, what did Egyptian police do (other than help) regarding the public murders of Christians? They assisted the civilians in killing Christians, but that's about it. The way this was portrayed in the video was... well... silly, childish, and shameful, but the criticism itself is entirely valid. In this context the video just seems like the byproduct of a very stupid person trying to draw attention to some very real problems.
It's about the disgusting and inhuman nature of the things this video is critisising that settles my opinion on this debate. If we're not allowed to mock and ridicule things that are disgusting and inhuman, it seems we're left with very little power to use our speech to state our opinions.
Nobody in their right mind supports violence. Even if 100,000 people protest across the muslim world it's less than 0.01% of the muslim population so your argument has absolutely no truth to it whatsoever.
Well then that's .01% more than the Christian and Jewish worlds have. You have to wonder why.
And I would agree that nobody in the right mind supports violence, unfortunately religion oftentimes puts you very much in the wrong mind. Like 1/3 of Muslim students in Britain supporting killing in the name of Islam. This disgusting opinion is not one that they would hold if it wasn't for their religion poisoning their minds.
Obviously whoever made this film knew it was going to mock the islam religion and we all know how that turns out, he made this film on purpose, and therefore was instigating an attack, he did it on purpose, so in a way he wanted to start conflict
So you're saying we should appease their facist views then?
"Oh you can have free speech, but just don't you dare piss off them Muslims, they for some reason are more special than us and have the right to react this way over something insignificant."
Yeah fuck that dude, I call bullshit, Imma insult who I want when I want regardless of their views, and if that pisses one group off more than another I'll insult 'em some more just for good measure.
well, i seem to have put myself in a pickle in this one xD
lol, well either way, the guy knew he would be pissing off a violent people, the religion itself is not violent, but the people who "fight for it" dont even follow the religion, so idk, but its not cool to mock a religions idol
Any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or DISPLAY which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it DISPARAGES or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Now I would like ask people do they consider the N word as hate speech? If they don't know what I mean by the N word, I mean "N--ger". Now what I want to know is if a magazine had the N word printed on it's front page nobody in their right mind would support it because it's racist. It means "my black brother" now to be honest with you I don't understand how that is offensive, but it is DISPARAGING and so nobody in their right mind would print a Magazine with the N word on it, why? It's considered hate speech because it's DISPARAGING. Similarly this is like saying the N word to muslims and then saying you just need to be more tolerant and accept critisism. This isn't 'bout criticism, people criticize Islam on a daily basis, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and anyone else can, Bill Maher called the Quran a "hate filled holy book". We don't care, people call Muhammad (s) a pedophile, a murderer and all sorts of things. The VIDEO isn't criticism it's Anti-muslim. People can criticize and say whatever the hell they want (like Bill Maher), but this has reached a level where it's DISPARAGING. Also I'd like to say all Western countries have laws against Hate speech EXCEPT America, where you have a right to be racist. i.e. Ku Klux klan, West Borough Baptist Church, New Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, which are very clearly racist. However in EU countries, Canada, AUstralia, New Zealand, hate speech is banned as long as it's against Jews, Blacks, but not muslims.
the video seems racist to me. this might even anger muslim community. one must respect another person. the video would only trigger anger and hurt to muslims.
The video didn't cause it, the attack was planned, the embassy had said many days before that they had heard about and the people in Washington refused to do anything about it, then when the riot happened they started pointing to the video.
Obviously, what if an individual video is created insulting every person that is voting "No". Will they still vote not to remove that insulting video from YouTube? Think about it!
I'm a muslim and google should have deleted innocence of muslims because prophet muhammad to us is like jesus to christians, and imagine if i disrespect jesus, how would u feel? We love prophet muhammad and god and all of prophet muhammads family so deleting innocence of muslims is the right thing to do. Muslims NEVER disrespected christians or jesus... But all the time christians insulted muslims and burned the koraan and so on... Like all moms and dads say, we are all a family and all human beings are brothers and sisters! SO STOP INSULTING US!!!!
and imagine if i disrespect jesus, how would u feel?
Well I'm not a Christian anymore, but if I was I would feel a little offended. I surely would not kill innocent people, vandalize public property, and participate in the gang rape of women in the street, which more or less seems to be the Muslim response to people criticizing their dogma.
Muslims NEVER disrespected christians or jesus... But all the time christians insulted muslims and burned the koraan and so on...
Ahahahahahahaha.
Good joke. Laugh time is over.
We're all well aware of he disgusting and hateful anti-Christian, anti-female, anti-Semitic, anti-homosexual, and anti-non-Muslim propaganda that spews out of the Middle East. This is shit teaching that Jews and Christians are apes and pigs, and that homosexuals and women are sub-human trash, in a nutshell. I wonder if murdering Christians in the street for the crime of being Christian counts as "disrespecting Christians." I think it does. And if this is the case, "disrespecting Christians" has become something of a fad since the glorious revolution for peace and freedom in the Middle East.
Did u really belive this movie?? Muslims never did that to christians!! The creator of innocence of muslims is just a hater that hates muslims this much and keeping this video on google is offending muslims!!!!!
Muslims never killed women and raped people and never ran in the street killing christians!!! And yes, dont u know terry jones burned the koraan??!!
Burning the koraan and publishing and not deleting innocence of muslims is enough !!!!
All the things that you mentioned are not real!!!!
The number of other things I would have to link to you to show you the error of your ways is enormous. So instead I suggest you do a little research yourself into current events. Or past events. Or likely future events. There are hundreds of well-documented incidents in dozens of countries spanning back 50 years or so, and you can find them on several websites. Muslims persecute Christians, Jews, homosexuals, and women far more than any of these groups persecute Muslims.
And yes, lots of things seem to offend Muslims. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, to name a few. But just like we refuse to mandate that western women cover themselves head-to-toe to avoid offending Islamist fundies, we should also refuse to censor ourselves to avoid offending Muslim extremists.
Whats your point with the "koraan" burning? People burn American flags. People burn Bibles. People burn cigarettes. So what?
And burning religious dogma and enjoying free speech is enough what? Enough to justify childish tantrums and violent outbreaks across the Muslim world? I don't think so.
Though I believe in free speech and tolerating other ideas ,that movie was hate speech. If left online it would threaten ripping the world in half(especially due to violence) but that ain't my point it was also very mean.not a thing a sensible gentleman does
If I was to mock Jesus, which I will never do. Billions of Christians around the world would get upset. Muslim protesting getting violent and lot of us thinking they going bit to far, that media talking everyone has different ways of showing anger. If I was to mock someone mum or dad I probably get into a fight with the person who I mocked, there would be few people like me who would think It doesn't deserve the impotence. but if everyone start thinking and didn't give importance these people would go to far with it.
The video is protected free speech/freedom of expression.
No...it isn't. Freedom of Speech does not apply here...at all.
It is also in accordance to youtube's terms of service.
YouTube's TOS and Community Guidelines specifically prohibit hate speech/discrimination and the incitement of violence acts.
Deleting the video would be youtube implying that they do not value free speech/freedom of expression.
YouTube deletes hundreds of videos daily. If you think YouTube has any obligation to Freedom of speech, you clearly have no clue what the right to free speech actually is.
And if the video is literally resulting in murders, who in their right mind would keep it up?
No...it isn't. Freedom of Speech does not apply here...at all.
How does it not apply here?
YouTube's TOS and Community Guidelines specifically prohibit hate speech/discrimination and the incitement of violence acts.
Its not hate speech, but if you would like to call it that than go ahead. I would like you to also know that by that same nature anything making fun or speaking out against any other religion is also hate speech and should be removed.
YouTube deletes hundreds of videos daily. If you think YouTube has any obligation to Freedom of speech, you clearly have no clue what the right to free speech actually is.
And if the video is literally resulting in murders, who in their right mind would keep it up?
The. Video. Did. Not. Cause. The. Riots.
The riots were predicted days before and they knew the crowds were preparing for something big. It was in anniversary of 9/11, this video is just being used as a scapegoat.
2)agree on fact that all anti religious and anti atheist(those videos which attack or degrade anyone) videos should be removed.why keep them? "free speech" really ?why not talk about things that are non offensive like rubber duckies and pie.
3)freedom of speech means say what you want not print what some other guy said and keep showing it off just to tell people you can,that's just immature!
No...it isn't. Freedom of Speech does not apply here...at all.
Care to tell me how it isn't? How is this guys video somehow illegal?
YouTube's TOS and Community Guidelines specifically prohibit hate speech/discrimination and the incitement of violence acts.
Youtube has said that the video is in full accordance with its guidelines. The video is critical of Muhammed. Incitement of violence would be like "go out to your nearest church and burn it down!". The video did not tell anyone to go do anything. This would be like saying movies about The Hulk incite violence since he destroys buildings and cities.
YouTube deletes hundreds of videos daily. If you think YouTube has any obligation to Freedom of speech, you clearly have no clue what the right to free speech actually is.
You are right in that YouTube has no obligation to allow free speech, but it would be very damaging to their reputation to not only violate their ToS but to also violate free speech, even though they are entirely allowed to legally.
And if the video is literally resulting in murders, who in their right mind would keep it up?
We are all adults, if a video or movie offends you, don't watch it. If we are going to ban videos that are deemed offensive, this will have chilling effects on free speech because then it becomes either illegal or likely to result in being censored.
The video needs to stay up. It is not the movie makers fault that some muslims can't resist murdering someone simply for hurting their feelings.
strange how were discussing something that happened on a site co-created by a guy who belonged to the same faith that is being ridiculed with non factual junk?!
This video is completely protected under freedom of speech and expression. It has a right to exist, regardless of how many people hate it or if it offends them.
It's about should Google have deleted the video, not the government. It's only censorship in its fullest meaning when the government takes down the video. Youtube has their terms of service but they are disagreeable and debateable.
Deleting the video would be youtube implying that they do not value free speech/freedom of expression.
Google values profits. It does what is most profitable in this case but not what is the right thing to do. When people act against a corporation it can and maybe should change its ways. This has nothing to do with free speech.
That said I don't think they should apply self-censorship even from a moral perspective that doesn't say "make as much moeny as possible".
I have not seen the movie, nor do I care to. Here is what my opinion is.
An individual is allowed to produce whatever they want. If it is free speech, they are free to make it and have it say anything they want. BUT,if they create something illegal (in some cases tough to define), then they should be prosecuted. If the court would find the movie to be illegal take it down and out him in jail. If they don't find it illegal, tell people to watch it at their own risk. It is their choice if they don't like it then too bad. There is plenty of stuff out there I don't like that I can't change or stop...I just choose not to watch it then.
YouTube isn't owned by the government, they provide a service and they are not obligated to follow the first amendment with their service. The problem is, virtually everybody in the United States knows the importance of free speech and how it is written in the constitution. YouTube publicly supports the first amendment, as does virtually all the big tech companies. To take down the video would be a huge blow to YouTube's reputation as a proponent of free speech.
The video is not causing the deaths of innocent lives. Consider the following situation:
If an Egyptian made a video insulting towards christianity, and Bob decides to shoot everybody at his local Egyptian embassy, is that the Egyptians fault for making the video? Or is it that Bob simply has problems?
The making of movie of such kind is from those people who love to spread hate around the world and cause trouble for everyone, why can't we live in peace and harmony? why we just do not touch few sensitive topics which hurts a very big group of people (muslims) around the world causing trouble for everyone.
If someone speak bad about your family you will fight with them and for us muslims it's impossible to even hear a word about the beloved prophet (P.B.U.H).
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
As someone pointed out, you've posted on the wrong side.
Anyway, let's use a personal example from me, I'll equate it with something I'm very sensitive about. Dead baby jokes. I can't stand them, I feel sick to my stomach at the very mention of them (like I am now), and just all around absolutely hate them.
I have friends who find then funny. If they tell one, I instantly remove myself from the situation. If they don't know I don't like them, I ask them not to say them around me, not to stop saying it altogether.
Just because it's sacred to you, doesn't mean it is to others.
True but still people ought to be more considerate.even if angry never use violence (I applaud all those people who didn't but were forgotten due to ones that did use violence.)
Even though the video mocks a religous icon I dont think Google should have banned it wether you agree with it's content or not that would have been an infringement of of Freedom Of Speech, the violence that followed was sad and unfortunate but the types of people that were involved in the violence would have found another excuse for similar violence if the video had been banned.
