Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[51]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[59]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[51]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-18 05:39:45.814
	1	+2016-12-18 05:39:45.0

Caselist.CitesClass[59]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,76 @@
	1	+=Round 3 NC=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+==Hate Speech Reps K==
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+==Links==
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+====Our understanding of hate speech and its impacts are defined by dominant cultural discourses. By minimizing the impacts of hate speech, the aff perpetuates a culture that excludes the experience of minority groups. Watterson 1 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)====
	11	+The right to speak freely and the minimization by judges of the harm of hate speech combine to create a sizable obstacle to its restriction. The most apparent obstacle to justifying anti-hate speech policies is that first amendment prohibits regulations of speech that are based on "viewpoint." 48 At first glance, these policies seem to prohibit the expression of racist and sexist viewpoints, and, as such, are contrary to the first amendment. Added to this potential doctrinal problem is that many judges may see hate speech as insignificant. But closer scrutiny will reveal that hate speech is something other than the expression of a constitutionally protected viewpoint. The biggest obstacle to hate speech policies is not the first amendment itself. It is, instead, the perspective of the judge who sees hate speech as "isolated and purposeless acts"49 or as "merely offensive,"50 *965rather than as a facet of the systematic repression of racial minorities 51 that has a long-standing history. 52 Maintaining that hate speech is "something less than a viewpoint" is not at odds with a position that invests hate speech with significance. What is significant, however, about hate speech is not its status as a protected viewpoint; rather, it is the effect that hate speech has on its victims and on society at large. 53 Definitions of hate speech are clouded by conventional preconceptions held by dominant social groups. "The typical reaction of non-target group members is to consider the incidents isolated pranks, the product of sick-but-harmless minds....It is not the kind of real and pervasive threat that requires the state's power to quell."54 For example, although the Doe Court phrased the fighting words exception 55 very broadly, and was willing to recognize that under certain circumstances racial epithets could be characterized as fighting words, 56 the court did not see hate speech as threatening the kind of injury encompassed in the fighting words exception. Nor did it explicate when an epithet was a fighting word. Discussing the applicability of the fighting words exception to hate speech, one commentator makes a point that reveals that the way in which courts conceive of this exception is colored by the perspective of dominant social groups: Under existing law, insults of such dimension that bring men—this is a male centered standard—to blows are subject to a first amendment exception. The problem is that racist speech is so common that it is seen as part of the ordinary jostling and conflict people are expected to tolerate, rather than fighting words. Another problem is that the effect of dehumanizing racist language is often flight rather than fight. 57 *966 Why should the first amendment yield in order to protect against fight but not flight? That courts are willing to protect against the typical reaction of dominant social groups, but not against other responses, is a stark illustration of our inability to reckon with difference and the way in which we tend to assume sameness.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Your representation of hate speech creates a sense of powerlessness for the victims. By refusing to acknowledge suffering, the aff adds to the injury experienced by all forms of oppression. Watterson 2 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)====
	15	+The physical and psychological pain caused by hate speech should be given special significance because of its devastating effects. Pain is too world-destroying to do otherwise: "~~T~~he victim's intangible normative world ~~is~~ crushed by the material reality of pain and its extension, fear." 72 Pain destroys language. It silences. ~~F~~or the person, in pain, so incontestably and unnegotiably present is it that "having pain" may come to be thought of as the most vibrant example of what it is to "have certainty," while for the other person it is so elusive that hearing about pain may exist as the primary model of what it is "to have doubt." Thus pain comes unshareably into our midst as at once that which cannot be denied and that which cannot be confirmed. Whatever pain achieves, it achieves in part through its unshareability, and it ensures this unshareability in part through its resistance to language . . . . Prolonged pain does not simply resist language but actively destroys it, bringing about an immediate reversion to a state anterior to language, to the sounds and cries a human being makes before language is learned. 73 Although it is impossible literally to share pain, judges must endeavor to understand the pain experienced by victims of hate speech. Otherwise the judge is himself or herself condoning the pain inflicted by those who speak hate. 74 Judges may be unable to avoide daling out pain but they should avoid doing so without first contemplating the reality of *970 this pain and then considering whether the imposition of this pain is right. 75 Because judges have the power to have their perspectives define meaning in the legal realm, it will be the judge who determines whether the pain experienced by the victim of hate speech is recognized, and whether that pain is deemed to matter. In this respect, not only do those who speak hate inflict pain upon their victims, judges who characterize hate speech as "isolated and purposeless acts" and as "merely offensive" inflict pain as well. Judges inflict two sorts of pain. First, judicial decisions that do not recognize the seriousness of hate speech tolerate (and implicitly authorize) the hate inflicted upon its victims. 76 Legal interpretation takes place in a field of pain and death . . . . Legal interpretive acts signal and occasion the imposition of violence upon others . . . . Interpretations in law also constitute justifications for violence which has already occurred or which is about to occur. When interpreters have finished their work, they frequently leave behind victims whose lives have been torn apart by these organized, social practices of violence. 77 Second, when a judge trivializes hate speech, the victims experience the pain of having their point of view discounted. Victims of hate speech, then, are inflicted with a double dose of injury. They suffer real and tangible pain stemming from the hate speech itself. Additionally, they experience the pain of being powerless—of being at the mercy of the perspective of judges who fail to see and acknowledge their pain, and of knowing that their perspective counts for little. One commentator has stated that "~~t~~o be hated, despised, and alone is the ultimate fear of all human beings" 78 and that " t he aloneness comes not only from the hate message itself, but also from the government response of tolerance." 79
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+==Alt and Impact Framing==
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====The alternative is to prioritize the experience of the victim when analyzing instances of oppression. Challenging the dominant discourse is key – Watterson 3 (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)====
	22	+Minow discusses the "unstated assumptions" that underlie perceptions of, and adjudication about, differences. These unstated assumptions reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes. As she describes the process: First, we often assume that "differences" are intrinsic, rather than viewing them as expressions of comparisons between people . . . . Second, typically, we adopt an unstated point of reference when assessing others. From the point of reference of this norm we determine who is different and who is normal . . . . Third, we treat the perspective of the person doing the seeing or judging as objective rather than subjective . . . . Fourth, we assume that the perspectives of those being judged are either irrelevant or are already taken into account through the perspective of the judge. That is, we regard a person's self conception or world view as unimportant to our treatment of that person . . . . Finally, there is an assumption that the existing social and economic arrangements are neutral. 58 Understanding how we think about difference helps to reveal how these unstated assumptions interact. All comparisons involve, whether stated or unstated, a baseline norm of comparison. This norm is the common evaluative standard that constitutes the point of view for judging. But, the deck is stacked. The dominant social group's perception is often the source of the norm. This explains the difficulty in discussing minority reactions in comparison with those of the dominant group—why fight not flight is considered significant. A realization that we tend to assume sameness and a recognition of difference must be incorporated into the adjudicative process. Hannah Arendt has remarked, "By closing your eyes you become . . . impartial . . ." 59 This implies that by starting with a blank slate one can see with unclouded vision. But no one is free of preconceptions; no one is a blank slate. So the question becomes: How do we make justice in a world that by definition is wrought with preconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature and effects of hate speech? Speaking of the process of judging, Arendt has stated that the thinking process which is active in judging something is not, like the thought process of pure reasoning, a dialogue between me and myself, but finds itself *967 always and primarily, even if I am quite alone in making up my mind, in an anticipated communication with others with whom I know I must finally come to some agreement. 60 The answer, then, to this question is that judging should be an inclusive process in which multiple and divergent perspectives are considered. It is the advocate who is the means by which the court is presented with alternative perspectives. That is, the mechanism by which victims of hate speech can have their voices heard is through the words of the advocate. Prior to presenting the court with this perspective, however, the advocate must herself come to understand 61 the relevant alternative perspective. In this respect, the advocate is the intermediary between the court and the victim; she is the voice of, but not the source of, the relevant perspective. One who is trying to understand victims of hate speech will surely benefit generally from considering the perspectives of others, thereby checking her own preconceptions. But, the perspective of the victims of hate speech provides the greatest insight because only this perspective will reveal fully the effects of hate speech. 62 If the advocate were the sole source of alternative perspectives we would be back to square one; that is, judging would not be an inclusive process which takes into account multiple voices. In short, when framing a strategy for her advocacy (a process that, of necessity, involves judging), the lawyer must listen to the voices of others.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+==Hate Speech PIC==
	26	+
	27	+
	28	+====Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except for hate speech. Lawrence bracketed is the solvency advocate====
	29	+Charles R. Lawrence III, "Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment," 1992, ~~http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2784andcontext=vlr~~
	30	+But there is no recognition in First Amendment law of the systematic private suppression of
	31	+AND
	32	+There can be no free speech where there are still masters and slaves.
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====Competition: the counterplan competes both textually and functionally—you don't restrict any speech, we restrict hate speech. ====
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+====Net Benefits:====
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness.====
	42	+Jared **Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12**, Why We Should Ban "Hate Speech", American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ **Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron's position
	43	+First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition
	44	+AND
	45	+in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.
	46	+
	47	+
	48	+==Hate Speech DA==
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+====Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now. Sutton 16 ====
	52	+**Sutton 16** Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full //LADI
	53	+A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease
	54	+AND
	55	+lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
	56	+
	57	+
	58	+====Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech====
	59	+**Volokh 15** Eugene Volokh,No, There's No "hate Speech" Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 //LADI
	60	+I keep hearing about a supposed "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment
	61	+AND
	62	+with any established definition of "hate speech" that I know of.)
	63	+
	64	+
	65	+====Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups. ====
	66	+**Greenblatt 15** Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html //LADI
	67	+When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking
	68	+AND
	69	+are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.
	70	+
	71	+
	72	+====The aff's trivialization of hate speech undermines our project against systemic racism and oppression as a whole. EVEN if you grant them their silencing impacts – that silencing is KEY to create a cultural shift. ====
	73	+**Watterson 91** (Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)
	74	+Second, hate speech policies manifest our commitment to the elimination of invidious distinctions—
	75	+AND
	76	+racism will be continued and our commitment to equal rights will be strengthened.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-18 05:39:47.124

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Neil Tagare

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker CZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+51

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood Jackson Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - HATE SPEECH K PIC DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+CPS