The video 'innocence of muslims' is a benefit for society

After such a long introduction, I fell it is my duty to clarify what it is I am NOT arguing for or against and then move on to address the prompt "The video 'Innocence of Muslims' is a benefit for society". Many of the arguments offered during round one strike me as irrelevant to the subject at hand. They are undoubtedly related to the matter discussed in the video and the sociological reasons behind the subsequent reactions, but they do not affect the truth of the proposed statement. I will therefore not be arguing for the following topics: 1. I will not be arguing for Islam. I am not a Muslim, I disagree with Islam vehemently on a great many things and feel no need to act as an Islamic apologist in order to affirm that the video in question is not a benefit to society. 2. I will not be arguing for the influence of religion in the world. For full disclosure, I am a Catholic and believe firmly in the right to bring your religious worldview to bear on your public life, including in politics. This, however, is not the point we are contending, nor does it have direct baring upon it. I will therefore, in this instance, let sleeping dogs lie. 3. I will not be arguing for riots and murders committed by Muslim radicals with the excuse of the video. These are heinous acts that deserve condemnation, but the fact that they are atrocious acts does not affect the nature of the video, which should be considered by its own merits. 4. I will not be arguing for politically correct multiculturalism. Pusillanimous reactions against terrorist attacks are themselves damnable, but these do not affect the nature of the video in question either. I will be arguing on the basis of a general principle. While freedom of speech (just as freedom of conscience or freedom of religion) is a benefit for society, not everything that is covered under said freedom is itself beneficial. Let's take an example that is generally agreed upon: The Westboro Baptist Church is covered under freedom of speech. The things they say, however, are far from positive. They are hateful, and cause pain to those who have lost loved ones and are faced with signs saying "God Loves Dead Soldiers" when they go to pay their respects to those who gave their lives for their country and for the very freedoms which are being used to insult them. It is undoubtedly protected speech, but it is not itself beneficial to society. Following this general principle, although the freedom which allows the film-makers to create "Innocence of Muslims" is undoubtedly beneficial, this positive judgment cannot be automatically extended to the video itself. The video therefore stands further examination. "The Innocence of Muslims" makes statements based on fact. It is undoubted and recognized by Muslim scholars, for example, that Mohamed did indeed marry a six year-old child and consummate said marriage once his "bride" reached the age of nine. This, and other facts, are portrayed in a crude, insulting and unsophisticated manner which had two effects. The first, as Mr. Scott has already mentioned, is the violent reactions in the Muslim world. This is not an argument against the video, however. Those violent reactions can be seen after any real or imaginary slight on Islam, and such threats cannot be a detriment to the open and public discussion of the truth. Western values must not be ignored in order to assuage violent groups. The second, and truly relevant, result is that the general public is less likely to take seriously the facts that are supposed to be exposed by the video. The style of the video reduces what could be legitimate concerns and challenges to Islam to mere taunts and jeers. any minimally sensitive person would look at the video and feel more appalled by the apparent bigotry of the movie than the horrors it portrays. This gives arguments to those who wish to silence public debate on Islam and gives credence to the idea that Islamist riots are a reaction against an imagined "islamophobia" instead of against Western democratic values. To summarize my argument: Premise 1: While free speech is beneficial to society, not everything protected by free speech is itself beneficial. Premise 2: The video "innocence of Muslims" not only is not conducive to civilized public discourse, it is directly disruptive of it and tends to obscure the truth rather than expose it. Premise 3: The disruption of civilized public discourse and obscuring of the truth are not beneficial to society. Conclusion: Therefore the video "Innocence of Muslims" is not a benefit to society.