It was wrong for Facebook to delete the group "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day!"

Before seeking to defend and re-inforce my arguments, I'll deal with the two conclusions that he provided, in reverse order: === REBUTTAL === 1) That Facebook's ban "violates human rights" No, it doesn't. Looking at the two most relevant documents used - the UN Declaration and the US Bill of Rights (as Facebook is based in the US) - none of the articles quoted apply to this case. To deal with them very briefly: US Bill of Rights: a) The First Amendment does give people freedom of speech, however this is not without restrictions. An example of this is bullying - is a playground bully, when he belittles his victim, within his rights to do so by virtue of the First Amendment? Of course not: speech that fundamentally undermines a person's identity should not be free. How about if the bully doesn't believe what he is saying is causing offence - maybe even doesn't want to cause offense (perhaps by reckless use of the N-word) - but knows nonetheless that offence is being caused? Surely the principle still applies: in this circumstance, his speech should not be free. This surely applies especially so when one is insulting the very foundation of one's self-identity - such as religion. Given that the foreseen consequence of the group is to cause severe offense to Muslims, the principle applies to the situation under discussion - Facebook were therefore not in contravention of the First Amendment when they acted as they did. b) The Fifth Amendment does not apply: no-one is being deprived unduly of liberty by Facebook's actions. They're still permitted to believe what they want, say what they want and do what they want. In fact, they arguably have a better opportunity to say what they want, as Facebook's ban has made international news. Nothing has been deprived of them in this regard. UN Declaration: I point out that Article 1 of this Declaration says that people "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. " I suggest that knowingly insulting the followers of Islam, as the group creators were doing, is against the spirit of this Article. a) Article 2 relates to non-discrimination. I don't see how this bears any relevance to my opponent's case. b) Article 3: see above on the non-deprivation of liberty. c) Article 17.2: For this article to apply, my opponent must show how a group created online, on a private (Facebook-owned) website, constitutes "property" that belongs to the creators of the group. d) Article 18: See above on the limitations on freedom of speech. e) Article 19: Ditto. f) Article 20: Ditto. g) Article 28: Ditto. h) Article 30: Ditto. For all these reasons, Facebook has not contravened any human rights in banning the referenced group. 2) The message that the ban sends I have already shown, in the freedom of speech section above, that the group's creators did not have the right to do what they did - there is no way, then, in which they (or Facebook) were "threatened out of their rights". Nor, seeing the gratuitious offence that was caused, were Facebook "weak" in their actions: they did the right thing. === RE-INFORCEMENT OF MY ARGUMENTATION === 1) Facebook, as a private organisation, can set its terms of service. My opponent rightfully said that legal =/= moral. But given what I argued above about free speech, it was moral for Facebook to act as it did. The fact that Facebook explicitly says in its terms of joining Facebook, and conditions of creating a group, that such actions as those committed by the group creators could result in punitive action, only serves to bolster Facebook's justifiability in what they did. 2) Intention, knowledge, cause and effect My opponent has made great currency out of the fact that the group creators' intention was to speak out against freedom of speech, and deliberately to create "funny and smart" depictions of Mohammad. Firstly, this misses the point of Muslims' objections - they do not object merely against hateful depictions, they object against ALL depictions. The group would still be causing offence, therefore, even if all of the pictures really were "funny and smart". Secondly, it is patently clear that many of the pictures posted to the group are hateful. Many of them either propose defacing / destroying the Kaaba or depict Mohammad in compromising and insulting positions. [1] The group is therefore clearly a medium for hate speech - and, though that's clearly not the moderators' intentions, they know that it's a side-effect and continue to allow the group to exist nonetheless. For both of these, given that the two consequences - speaking out against extremist Muslims, and the insult/offence caused - are a direct result of the group's continued existence, and that the moderators know that both will happen and nonetheless do nothing to stop or stem* the flow, they are morally responsible for both of the consequences. *They could, for instance, only allow admins to post pictures - perhaps included those submitted by members and vetted for offensiveness. It would lead to less pictures, yes, but not as many pointlessly insulting pictures, which undermines the point that they want to make. ) For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose the motion. I await my opponent's response. Source: [1] . http://www.facebook.com... The latest version of the group: the one my opponent put up was either mistyped or has also been removed. Details of the US Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are taken from the same links provided by my opponent.