The Instigator
ltbloom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

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

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 2 votes the winner is...
WillRiley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2014 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,025 times Debate No: 67343
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

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?
WillRiley

Con

Thank you for creating the interesting debate.
Definitions
I trust you will agree with the following definition.

Ban
Officially or legally prohibit.
Arguments
Obviously, for this debate, Pro has the BoP. I will attempt to refute Pro's arguments as well as show that "The Interview" should not be banned.

The following is the First Amendment-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [1]
In your argument, you say-

" People can't just say free speech! and that's it."
But actually, that is exactly what they can do. It's protected. I can make a movie about whatever I want, and according the the first amendment, it can't be banned. To abridge something is to take away part of it. Obviously, banning a movie is doing that.
" 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"
Personally, I don't. I also don't think that your personal opinion should be able to override the constitution.

"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."
Apparently, because Pro lives near the cancelled premier, they feel qualified to tell us the security risk is so bad that we have to override the constitution.
"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."
Well, while you were sitting there in the theatre with a concerned look on your face, everyone else was laughing.
Back to you Pro.



[1] http://constitution.findlaw.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ltbloom

Pro

Really?

-So first of all, there are many types of limitations already put in place on free speech in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
On top of this, TV/Movies already censor a ton of things (which is besides the point).
So no, you're incorrect on just citing the 1st Amendment alone.
The 'you are prohibited from yelling fire in a theater for no reason was just one easy example. Why, because it endangers the group of people in the theater.

-I shouldn't even have to argue against your ridiculous 'laughing' point. But to your crazy 'while everyone else was laughing' claim, who cares if people outside the theater think that yelling fire is a funny joke. Your argument is literally 'It's hilarious to me that the >1mm people around those targeted areas are at heightened risk b.c. I'm not anywhere around there'. The reason yelling fire is already prohibited is because it poses a risk to people inside. In this case, the risk was a threat to a large number of people in select cities. That's not an opinion. (I don't live close enough for it to have mattered to me, so it is more for people closer where it was certainly a risk regardless of how severe or mild).

-You never answered the question at the bottom of my last post.
WillRiley

Con

Response

"Really?"
Yes, really.


"So first of all, there are many types of limitations already put in place on free speech in the US."
I am aware of this. However, it is plain to see that such limitations in the case of the interview are unconstitutional. Obviously, this is directly at odds with the First Amendment.


"On top of this, TV/Movies already censor a ton of things (which is besides the point)."

You're right. It is besides the point.


" So no, you're incorrect on just citing the 1st Amendment alone.
The 'you are prohibited from yelling fire in a theater for no reason was just one easy example. Why, because it endangers the group of people in the theater."

If I remember correctly, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, it overrides any other law.


"I shouldn't even have to argue against your ridiculous 'laughing' point. But to your crazy 'while everyone else was laughing' claim, who cares if people outside the theater think that yelling fire is a funny joke."

Maybe if you reread my argument you will understand. I was responding to you seeing the trailer, not the "Yell fire in a theatre" thing. Also, by accepting this debate, I essentially did answer the question at the bottom of your post. The answer is yes, it is still a comedy, and yes, I honestly say it should not be banned.


Arguments
There are three main things that banning the movie would do-

a) Violate the constitution.
b) Give in to the demands of a worthless tinpot dictatorship.
c) Hurt Sony since they already made the movie. Obviously, they spend money to get more, and you would have them spend money, and then get nothing back.

We all know that North Korea hates the United States. They want nothing more than to hurt us, and they have been trying to hurt us ever since the Korean War. Its not like they have suddenly decided to try to harm us.
Pretty much every type of media in North Korea is devoted to the government or it is Anti-American. We make one Anti-North Korean thing, and you want to ban it.

A censorship board is a terrible idea. There are plenty of things the government doesn't want us to know about. Edward Snowden? Public harm! We can't have people knowing about the NSA spying on them!

A terrorist attack from North Korea did not happen, thinking that one will is based on pure speculation. And remember, the government did not stop The Interview from showing, Sony did. Companies do not want people to be harmed because of their products (If not out of decency then because it would be bad for business) so they may cancel something like that on their own.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ltbloom

Pro

ltbloom forfeited this round.
WillRiley

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ltbloom

Pro

ltbloom forfeited this round.
WillRiley

Con

I further extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
FaustianJustice
ltbloomWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, though a case could have been made, and it looked like it was starting regarding the potential for public harm regarding free speech.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ltbloomWillRileyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture