Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[54]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[54]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-04 22:57:20.267
	1	+2017-02-04 22:57:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,65 @@
	1	+===NC===
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====I value morality. ====
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====To value any end, I must value the conditions necessary to will that end – independence is one of those conditions, since end-setting requires I be free from another's control. Willing means I hold myself to be able to fulfill that end, which requires freedom. There can be no objection to deny another's freedom since they possess the same right and that would deny my worth – resolving disputes via unilateral coercion is a contradiction.====
	8	+**Korsgaard:** Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
	9	+Suppose we are in the state of nature and we get into a dispute about
	10	+AND
	11	+, is to settle the particular dispute in question in some lawful way.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+====Thus we must have an omnilateral will since it's a contradiction by willing a world where the will is denied or clashing without resolution. All claims are provisional until brought under public right – only reciprocal coercion is consistent with freedom.====
	15	+**Korsgaard 2:** Christine M. Korsgaard "Taking the Law into Our Own Hands: Kant on the Right to Revolution" Oxford University Press. 2008
	16	+Now, with respect to an external and contingent possession, a unilateral Will cannot
	17	+AND
	18	+, a society under a civil constitution. (MPJ 6:256)
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+====Thus the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will. ====
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+===Contention – Sedition===
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+====Seditious speech violates freedom – revolution amounts to a contradiction, so speech supporting it is willing a world where there is no omnilateral will.====
	28	+**Varden:** Helga Varden ~~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010
	29	+To understand Kant's condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above
	30	+AND
	31	+qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331).
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====That negates – seditious speech is constitutionally protected.====
	35	+JUSTIA Law: "Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel" http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/41-seditious-speech.html *brackets in original
	36	+Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel.—Opposition to government through speech alone has been subject
	37	+AND
	38	+in Madison's view, a fundamental principle of the American form of government."
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+===Contention – Hate Speech===
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Hate speech negates.====
	45	+**Varden:** Helga Varden ~~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010
	46	+On the Kantian view I have been developing, hate speech and speech amounting to
	47	+AND
	48	+public debate and reflection followed by public regulation on behalf of all citizens.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+===Contention – Lies===
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+====Coercive speech and intentional lies undermine the state's monopoly on force – that negates====
	55	+**Varden:** Helga Varden ~~Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Illinois~~ "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" Springer. 2010 //BWSWJ
	56	+The refutation of a natural executive right also explains why Kant holds that public right
	57	+AND
	58	+laws'. They are not regulated by private law (6: 331).
	59	+
	60	+
	61	+====Lies and false statements are protected – that's the Supreme Court in New York Times v Sullivan '64====
	62	+~~Chief Justice **Brennan**, joined by Warren, Clark, Harlan, Stewart, White; the other 2 justices concurred; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan No. 39 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 376 U.S. 254 Argued January 6, 1964 Decided March 9, 1964 http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvsullivan.html //BWSWJ~~
	63	+That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected
	64	+AND
	65	+libel is taken from the field of free debate. ~~note 13~~

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-04 22:57:23.796

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Travis Fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Rock Springs

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+54

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Kant NC v2

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Golden Desert