The Instigator
ltbloom
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
noved18
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should the movie 'The Interview' have been banned in the first place?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
noved18
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 67342
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ltbloom

Pro

-First this is NOT a debate about N Korea or blackmail by hacking. I agree that both are bad. This is a PURE question of whether the movie should have been banned in the first place.

-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?
noved18

Con

I don't think the movie shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Why should they have banned a movie was meant to be a big joke.
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?
Debate Round No. 1
ltbloom

Pro

-So first to be clear, based on your 'it's not like they were being serious about it' that we agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere (instead of the just 'free speech for everything' that people are clamoring for). For you it sounds like you agree a non-comedy gory movie about killing him should be banned. That's where you draw the line. And the reason why would be pretty straightforward, I presume, it's that a non-comedy gory movie about killing him will certainly stir up trouble and risk some form of public safety.

-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.
noved18

Con

If we submit to dictators threats and surrender our freedom of expression, we will be jeopardizing freedom. In your conclusion you surmise that the movie should have been pulled due to a perceived threat to public safety. OK, so let's look at other threats in the same way. Should Christianity and other non-Islamic religions be banned because Islamic radicals threaten to kill all persons of non-Islamic faith? After all, practitioners of any religion other than Islam threaten the safety of the public if radical Islamists act out on their threats.

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?
Debate Round No. 2
ltbloom

Pro

-You've already agreed that you would ban a movie that is brutally gory about his assassination that's not a comedy! So there's no need for you to go that far off topic. Literally the question was specifically 'Would you ban this movie'? And you've literally already agreed to a 'I would ban the movie if it was brutally gory about his assassination that's not a comedy'. So you've basically are already pretty close.

-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.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

-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.
https://www.google.com...

So to conclude, I'd refer you back to the 1st paragraph.
noved18

Con

Yes Noclue411 is right. Seems to me Itbloom that you are missing the point that I made earlier . I already stated the movie should not be banned and using further examples of other reasons why succumbing to threats such as the one made regarding the movie and as in the examples made where similar threats are made with religion for example, amount to succumbing to and exhibiting weakness as it relates to blackmail. The point I am making is a valid point that we cannot and should not ban things based on threats as it seriously jeopardizes our strength and resolve to freedom in many forms. Didn't we fight for freedom? Why should we stop fighting by letting the terrorist win and control what we do?
Debate Round No. 3
ltbloom

Pro

ltbloom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by noclue411 1 year ago
noclue411
Seems to me Itbloom is missing the point made by noved18. Seems noved18 already stated the movie should not be banned and using further examples of other reasons why succumbing to threats such as the one made regarding the movie and as in the examples made where similar threats are made with religion for example, amount to succumbing to and exhibiting weakness as it relates to blackmail. I believe noved18 is making a valid point that we cannot and should not ban things based on threats as it seriously jeopardizes our strength and resolve to freedom in many forms.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 1 year ago
TheNamesFizzy
@Stefy I absolutely agree. I feel like people treat Kim Jong Un as a joke, but don't actually look at the monster he really is.
Posted by Stefy 1 year ago
Stefy
I dont think banned persay because that is a free speech violation. But i think either the creators shouldve not made it or theaters/stores refuse tl sell or show it. Not because of fear of N. Korea, but because its not freaking funny. The man has concentration camps. Why dont we make a comedy about the Holocaust? What about Japanese internment?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
ltbloomnoved18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
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,