Should the movie 'The Interview' have been banned in the first place?
Debate Rounds (4)
-I say Yes because
-Similar to how you can't yell fire in a building, there should be a line set here that should have banned this movie. Not saying they're the same thing, of course, but we do have laws that limit free speech when public safety is at risk.
Public safety is at risk here (regardless of how much or little you think it was). I live near in New York City relatively close to the now cancelled premier so I can tell you public safety was at risk. But even when I saw the first trailer several months ago, the first thing I thought was, N Korea might try to do some damage to something b.c. of this. Franco / Rogen / Sony knew they this idea would stir trouble = gets press attention = likely box office $; and they knew it'd cause some risk (which they underestimated) to the public vs. a potential big reward (for them).
-Thus there should be a line somewhere. People can't just say free speech! and that's it. It should be on a case by case basis and personally I draw the line here at nothing that portrays a killing of a real living leader (or person to be honest). I'd be fine with a censor committee that just bans on a case by case basis based on potential public harm risk.
For example, what if the movie was say a brutally graphic, gory version of a successful assassination of him that's not a comedy? Can you honestly say that movie should not be banned to maintain public safety?
Okay yes it was suppose to be about North Korea and killing Kim Jong Un but it is not like they were being serious about it.
That is the whole reason behind a joke is that you are not being serious about any of it and nobody is suppose to take the joke seriously. Daniel Tosh says the most cruel things I have ever heard on his show Tosh.0, things that could cause riots all over the world but yet he is on his 6 or seventh season now? And the only reason why is because everything he says is a joke and people know that he is joking. So why should this movie, that was clearly suppose to be a big joke, any different?
-Ok, so then it's just a matter of where to draw the line. I draw the line here. You draw it at something a bit more harsh. I actually just recommend a censor committee that reviews each case based on a case by case basis. If you make a choice to say ridicule someone who then decides to go after just you (by all means go ahead). But if you make that choice, and it has a risk of increasing harm to the public, I draw the line there (as does US law limiting free speech already does in a way)
-Your argument of the 'it's just a joke'. That's based on your perception. But my perception / your perception doesn't matter in this case. You're basically saying, 'I don't understand why a dangerous murderous insane person would react poorly to this & why he can't take a joke'. That's how a lot of bad things happen and in this case, whether it's a big or mild risk, it's definitely increased risk to the public.
Where do we stop? How much of our freedom should we surrender because of public safety threats? Your position is very dangerous to freedom of expression is it not?
-2nd, absolutely. There already exists many restrictions on 'freedom of speech' here in the US, when it comes to jeopardizing other's safety. You can't yell fire in a theater. I can't say I'm going to hurt you or kill you. Restrictions already exist. I can't even come out and slander you / call you say a racist in public.
-Only b.c you brought up this Christianity / Islam thing, which is just so off topic. Our question is more directly compared to should a movie made by Christians killing leader of Islam be banned (not banning Christianity which is the wrong comparison). And even then, YES. Go look up why you're not allowed to / NOONE posts photos of Mohammed (the Islam prophet) on TV. It's because if you do, they literally come and MURDER you. South Park almost did once 4 years ago (as a satire) and it got censored b.c. of enormous public safety risk.
So to conclude, I'd refer you back to the 1st paragraph.
ltbloom forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Both debaters presented compelling cases for their respective positions. Pro attempted to argue that freedom of speech is forfeited when that speech is detrimental to the general public or can cause harm. Con presented a case where Pro's position, in itself, is harmful against our freedoms including expression, as well as the fact that we'd be giving power to dictators. Pro focused too much on "drawing a line" which was clearly rebutted by Con by showing how comedy can stretch that line safely. Con further showed that it'd go against our basic tenets of freedom. This counter-argument was never met with a rebuttal by Pro. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Pro was the only one to utilize sources in this debate, thus he is awarded these points. Clear win for Con though,
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.