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

I'd like to return your thanks for what has been a very enjoyable debate. I look forward to the prospect of having another one in the future. To deal with your points, in order: 1) Freedom of speech and property To characterise this as simply "drawing a man who lived over a thousand years ago" is missing the point. To Muslims, this man is their prophet, the one to whom the divine word of Allah was revealed. This is the sort of man who, for obvious reasons, they want to respect as much as possible. And to deliberately show disrespect to their holy prophet is, by extension, showing disrespect to them. The closest parallel here would be Jesus in Christianity - he "just a man who lived over two thousand years ago", but to Christians is the most important man in their religion. The same levels of respect and disrespect apply. And when it comes to limitations on freedom of speech, I extend my point on the playground bully. He does not have the First Amendment right to belittle and humiliate his target, and a school is perfectly within their rights to punish him accordingly. This would apply just as much if, say, the bully was targetting his victim's religion, and so is directly relevant here. If someone belittles the very core of religious belief on Facebook - especially when Facebook have explicitly said in terms and conditions that such behaviour will not be tolerated - they should not be surprised when Facebook take action to prevent such actions from causing offence. This is not a choice between "religious dogma and freedom", as put in the false dichotomy presented in the last round. It is a choice between freedom of religion, and allowing people to belittle and demean other people's religion unthinkingly. It wouldn't be accepted if it was atheists targetting Christians in such a detrimental way; the same should apply when Muslims are the target. And on the Fifth Amendment, I point you back to what I linked to in my first debating round, specifically where Facebook set out the rules for creating a group. [1] They explicitly say there that contravening their rules may lead to such actions. They knew (or should have known) the risks that they were taken, and they created the group anyway. There's a good reason why the creators are not talking about Facebook taking away their property, and instead focusing on their alleged freedom of speech... because on the former point, they don't have a leg to stand on. 2) Alleged violations of human rights. All covered above, or conceded in the last round by my opponent. Minor point: "Ditto" means "the aforesaid, the above, the same". [2] 3) The message sent by the ban Yes, you have said numerously that the group's primary intention was the "show those willing to limit our freedoms that we don't fea their threats". I have not disputed that. I extend my point about the known side-effect of causing offence, and how the group's creators should be held morally responsible for that offence being caused, regardless of that primary intention. The conclusion is clear. Freedom of speech is justifiably limited when it is abused in such a way as to belittle and offend people, as seen with the analogy of the playground bully. Furthermore, Facebook, as a private site, had the right to set boundaries within this understanding of freedom of speech; they did so, namely that the group could be deleted. They then communicated these rules in such a comprehensive way that no-one creating a group could validly claim ignorance of them. For all of these reasons, Facebook were within their rights to delete the group. Vote CON. Thank you :-) Sources: [1] http://www.facebook.com... If you don't have a Facebook account, see the relevant section here: http://img337.imageshack.us... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...