The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims" should be censored.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 26158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Everybody knows about new anti-Islamic movie "innocence of Muslims". In my point of view it should be censored in order to be more patient and respectful to another religion.


In another debate I have made explicit my view that the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" is not beneficial to society. I nevertheless believe that, however little good can be drawn from the movie, the principle of free speech that protects it as a form of expression is of sufficient value that censorship should be out of the question.

Rather than provide more extensive rationale in this opening round, I will give the floor to my partner in this debate so we can hear the arguments that she believes outweigh freedom of speech in this instance.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent wants to know why this movie outweigh the freedom of speech's right. Today a lot of countries have freedom of speech and these countries try not to censor anything. Even though, these countries agree that freedom of speech have confines in order not to put rubbish into television. The movie "The Innocence of Muslims" has gone to the limit because of enormous scenes that are disgusting and doubtful. This movie would make the audience believe into the unauthentic historical events. First of all "Innocence of Muslim" offends Muslim people. I was born in Muslim family, all my relatives and most friends are Muslim. According to this movie we believe in something bad and inferior. Second, movie "innocence of Muslims" contains a lot of violence. It was really difficult to watch. This movie made me feel terrible and would happen with children? Third, it is like a provocation and feed to terrorist movements to make evil things.
In conclusion I want to write that all the reason that were mentioned outweigh freedom of speech.


Ms. Saule mentions cases of censorship in countries that uphold the principle of freedom of speech as justification for censorship in this case. It is indeed true that in most of the western world there exist limits to the exercise of said freedom. Rights are not exercised in a vacuum and many times they may come into conflict. The right of protests, for instance (a combination of the rights to free speech, association and reunion) often conflicts to the right to mobility of citizens who find their usual route to work cut off by protesters marching down Main Street. The same is also true of the famous case of freedom of speech not extending to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater (where this could cause a panic) or to threats. To say to a man "I will murder you and your family should you do this again" is quite definitely expression, but it is not protected by the right to freedom of expression because it infringes upon the rights of the person being threatened. It behooves us therefore to examine whether or not the justifications given to justify censorship of the video "the Innocence of Muslims" truly constitute weighty enough reasons to cancel free speech.

-- First of all "Innocence of Muslims" offends Muslim people (...) according to this movie we believe in something bad and inferior." --

There is no right to be offended. It is the nature of a plural society that different people will take differing views. Sometimes irreconcilable views, and many times offensive views. I, for instance find offensive the accusation leveled against those who believe in God that this is somehow an abdication of reason. I find it offensive when people malign the history of my country or accuse my Church (the Catholic Church) of being a force for evil in the world. Others find it offensive that I believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church, that all religions (or the lack thereof) outside of my own faith tradition are false religions and that their prophets or founders are false prophets. Others may find a certain political or economic opinion offensive. People are likely to be offended when what they believe in is insulted, yet this is not an infringement of their natural rights. If you are offended, I recommend not listening or, if you feel so inclined, to do as you are doing now and try to convince people that this opinion is wrong.

-- Second, the movie (...) contains a lotof violence (...) this movie made me feel terrible and [what] would happen with the children? --

It is certainly true that efforts must be made to protect children from inappropriate behavior. The film, however, did not appear on nickelodeon between the Rugrats and Hey Arnold (can you tell it's been a while since I've watched TV?). It appeared on a website for the purpose of uploading video content, and it did not infringe any of said websites criteria for censoring videos. It can only be accessed by people who purposely want to watch this content and, in the case that someone stumble across it accidentally it is a simple matter to close the window and avoid the content altogether. If you are afraid of young children encountering unsavory content, I suggest not allowing them unsupervised internet access, as there are far worse things they could find if left to their own devices.

-- Third,it is like a provocation and feed to terrorist movements to make evil things. --

Mohammedan terrorists are provoked by anything from a small-town pastor saying he would like to burn a book to satirical cartoons of their prophet with a bomb for a turban without forgetting films about the dire straits of women in their countries. If we were to limit free speech to those things which do not provoke the anger of radicals we would be imposing an intolerable restriction on human rights as well as sending the message that the use of violence to silence opposing views bears fruit.

I am not insensitive to the deep-felt emotional response to an attack on what one holds dearest. Every year we see (be it in art galleries, academia, the popular media or even gay rights parades) new satires and insults of Christianity and Catholicism. Just the example of "Piss Christ" or the "how to cook a crucifix" video, where a few idiots with no artistic talent and even less intellectual merit desecrate a representation of He whom I believe to be God Himself made flesh to suffer and die for my sins are enough to make my heart ache and my blood boil. I therefore understand, when faced with such a foul video as the one we are discussing, that the anger and indignation caused by it should elicit the desire to take action.
And there is appropriate action which can betaken. One can and must vocally and vehemently protest that which is believed to be out of line. That protest, however, is aimed at convincing others willingly to stop insulting (or not to take heed of said insults). That is what freedom of speech entails, opposing views meeting in the public square: emphatically not the silencing of one or another of those views for the simple reason that a group has taken offense.
Debate Round No. 2


Saule forfeited this round.


Well, this is rather unfortunate. I suppose I am left with no choice but to extend my argument and ask for support mentioning each of the six categories up for a vote (at least that seems to be the tradition here):

1. Who you agreed with before: That is entirely up to you now, isn't it?
2. Who you agree with now: Also up to you, although I hope to have been able to convince any who disagreed
3. Who had better conduct: Saule forfeited, although she was quite polite while she was with us.
4. Better spelling and grammar: I believe some mistakes were made on Saule's side, although I am not altogether sure I didn't make any myself. I will leave that to greater experts than I.
5. Who made more convincing arguments: Well, I really don't think it is becoming of me to say. I obviously prefer my own arguments, otherwise I would not have made them.
6. Most reliable sources: Neither of us used any sources, as the arguments used did not seem to require any. Unless an appeal to Nickelodeon is to be considered a source, in which case that's one for me.

It seems that begging for votes is an exercise in futility. Most of the matters up for voting are entirely subjective and the rest make you seem a bit cheap or rude if you do much advertising. I think I rather don't like this particular tradition.

I thank the readers for their attention and Ms. Saule for her kind invitation to debate this topic.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by IanScottWilson 4 years ago
GO TRASGUTRAVIESO, you are entirely right! Nothing should be censored.
Posted by CRSdave 4 years ago
By who do you think this movie should by censored exactly?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by Pro gives Con the win.