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

Since I've already addressed your points and I'm fairly busy, I'll just address the new points you've made. [quote]=== 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.[/quote] So, although hundreds of official documents state the freedom of speech and/or assembly, it is absolutely wrong to draw a man who lived over a thousand years ago? If there was a law saying that freedom of speech must adhere to all religious dogmas (like the islamic one), there would be no freedom of speech. This is going off-topic to the interpretation of the US Constitution, which is a lot more tricky subject. The First Amendment says: "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." Before we talk about the more tricky subject of free speech and its limitations, let's talk about the right to a peaceful assembly. I remember that, while in the US, I read in a textbook that right to a peaceful assembly is non-negotiable whatsoever unless you are blocking public streets. Well, just how many public roads did the Everybody Draw Muhammed ay block? None. Therefore the freedom to a peaceful assembly is violated. Since you are maing the claim that one cannot draw Muhammed under freedom of expression, I request for to show a United States Supreme Court's decision that explicitly says that freedom of expression must submit to religious dogma and therefore not drawing Muhammed is more important to the Constitution then freedom of expression. But, with all due respect, your assertion that one cannot draw a prophet of a religion under freedom of expression is fairly suspicious. However, I will let the voters decide which is more important: religious dogmas or freedom. Out of curiosity, why would a "[person] with libertarian/philosophical anarchist leanings. Atheist, anti-theist, scientific pantheist, secular humanist." think not insulting Islam is more important then freedom of expression? (Don't take this as an ad hominem, I'm just curious.) [quote]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.[/quote] The Fifth Amendement: "...nor be deprived of life, *liberty, or property*, without due process of law..." Arguably they didn't have their liberty taken, but they had their property taken without due process of law. All the pictures - gone. The posts - gone. 100,000+ fans - gone. If this is not property being deprived, I don't know what is. [quote]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.[/quote]Well, I thought of Facebook deleting the group and some muslims sending out death threats (which isn't exactly spirit of brotherhood.) However, since this article is so tricky to interpret and is rather implicit than explicit, it may very well be that both your and my interetations are correct. [quote]a) Article 2 relates to non-discrimination. I don't see how this bears any relevance to my opponent's case.[/quote]Well, this one is tricky to interpret too, but I thought of Facebook punishing people for standing up for free speech rather than those who stood up for censorship. Maybe a weak point. [quote]b) Article 3: see above on the non-deprivation of liberty.[/quote]I addressed this above as well. 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.[/quote]Some fans submitted pictures they had made. They were deprived without due process of law. And Facebook even says that "all content you submit will belong to you and you alone." or something to that effect. Touche. [quote]d) Article 18: See above on the limitations on freedom of speech.[/quote] I believe, like I said before, that drawing a man who lived over a thousand years ago is placed within the protection of free speech. [quote]e) Article 19: Ditto. f) Article 20: Ditto. g) Article 28: Ditto. h) Article 30: Ditto.[/quote]Ditto? 2) The message that the ban sends [quote]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.[/quote] I've said numerously that the group's *intention* was not to offend the average muslim but to show those willing to limit our freedoms that we don't fear their threats. I've quoted the group's description etc to prove my point further. New sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I think both of us have made pretty good cases so far. I've enjoyed debating with you, and maybe we could even do another debate sometime in the distant future. Thank you for a good and fair challenge. ;) -Hauki20 (Deo Vindice)