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

In order to continue the debate we must see which of the premises of the argument against the film (or rather the trailer of the film) "The Innocence of Muslims" being considered beneficial for society is under contention. I reproduce the entire argument once more for ease of reference: - 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." Premise one seems to have been accepted. I understand Mr. Scott's impatience with it. It is not likely that anyone would find contention with it, but it is the nature of this type of argument that some if not all the premises are things often taken for granted, but nonetheless are essential steps in justifying the conclusion as logically necessary. Premise three seems similarly to go without contention, rather Mr. Scott seems to vehemently agree with said premise saying the idea of being destructive is "rather scary". I note he uses "destructive" rather than "disruptive" but in spite of the difference of degree I accept the applicability in the present case. The point of contention seems to be in premise 2, as Mr. Scott does not admit that the film is disruptive (or destructive) of public discourse, but rather claims it is constructive. I must therefore focus this round on defending premise two for my argument to stand. Anything that affects the whole of society (as religion undoubtedly does) is fair game for examination, criticism and debate. I believe that neither Islam nor my own religion, Catholicism, are exceptions to this rule; quite to the contrary. I therefore do indeed concede that just as ideologies such as Fascism and Communism are strongly criticized and stringently examined, religions can and should be subjected to public exam and debate. Not all challenges, however, are constructive; just as not all criticism is constructive. and we must differentiate between what could be considered constructive and beneficial to society and what does not fall under this description. I suggest as follows three criteria in order to judge whether or not a challenge is constructive. 1. Does it open dialogue or does it rather divide people and pose an obstacle to open conversation? 2. Does it seek to find or promote communication, or does it seek to inflame passions and incite merely emotional reactions? (as clarification: if something elicits an emotional response this is not per se a negative trait, as long as this emotional reaction is based upon a reasoned stance and solid information) 3. Does it promote greater understanding or does it hinder intelligent discussion of the subject. Attempting to apply this criteria to "The Innocence of Muslims" will show that it fails on all counts. If anyone has not yet watched the trailer, it is still on Youtube and I recommend you watch a few minutes of it (I will not do you the disservice of recommending you waste your time watching the full, rather badly made, video) keeping these guidelines in mind. We are talking about an extremely unsophisticated production that seems more like a parody of itself than of Islam. It is truly hard to imagine a profitable discussion of Islam and its roll in the world today to be had on the basis of said movie. In light of this, and unless Mr. Scott is able to provide a more substantial rebuttal, I believe all three premises of my argument stand and must be accepted. As such the conclusion must also be accepted on pain of irrationality.