addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Motion: YouTube should Have Taken Down the Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Video

  • Oct 2, 2012 · 7:00 PM
  • Commonwealth Club - Boardroom

Full Motion: This house agrees that YouTube should Have Taken Down the Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Video, "Innocence of Muslims."

Google was asked by The White House to take down the low-budget anti-Muslim film "Innocence of Muslims". It had triggered deadly protests throughout the Muslim world. Google refused, citing its own guidelines regarding hate speech (though it later took down the video in Egypt and Libya, due to what it called the “very difficult situation” in those countries). Was Google right to reject the White House’s request? And should the White House have asked in the first place?
 * When innocent people are losing their lives, the Right to Life should take precedence over the Right to Freedom of Expression.
 * The film was made deliberately to cause unrest, hatred and even death, those with such damaging intentions should not be given a soapbox from which to spread their hate.
 * The long-term effects of this film could put national security, and the safety of our armed forces, in jeopardy.
 * This US made film is firmly protected by the First Amendment.
 * Just because the speech is protected does not mean those making the speech are shielded from criticism.
 * Insult does not justify violence.

See you on Tuesday!

Links: - First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Chuck Schumer’s “Limits to First Amendment” Garbage a Throwback to George W. Bush Circa 1999 - Exploring First Amendment Law - Google Brazil takes down controversial video - Judge: YouTube doesn't have to take down anti-Islam video - Google Keeping Innocence of Muslims On YouTube, Despite White House Pressure




Join or login to comment.

  • Lawrence

    You say: "the Right to Life should take precedence over the Right to Freedom of Expression". So does this mean the American revolutionists should not have resisted the British when they came to take the colonists guns?. Yes, the right to life is natural right as in Locke and Hobbes' Natural Law Theory. It also meanes those seeking to take life lose the protection of right to life.

    The intention of the film, short of direct incitement al a Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969, is protected speech. The standard of cri

    You say: "long-term effects of this film could put national security". What about the long term effects of radical Islam dominating all cultures?

    October 1, 2012

7 went

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy