| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,35 @@ |
|
1 |
+===CP=== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+====Counterplan Text – Colleges and Universities ought to allow all constitutionally protected speech in student publications except for hate speech==== |
|
5 |
+Competition – CP competes via mutual exclusivity – I limit hate speech but the aff allows all speech in publications |
|
6 |
+Net Benefits |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+====Publicaitons are a source of hate on campus – it's been used to promote platforms for htings look holocaust denial. Foxman 10 (Abraham H. Foxman National Director Anti-Defamation League, Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements A Manual for Action Revised: May 2010)==== |
|
10 |
+Holocaust denial is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the well-documented destruction of six million Jews during World War II is actually a myth created by Jews to serve their own self-interested purposes. On college campuses, Holocaust denial is most often encountered in the form of advertisements submitted to student newspapers by Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH). These ads are an affront to truth and an insult to the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis. They create a divisive atmosphere for Jews on campus and foster conflict among students, faculty, administrators and the local community. Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have worked together for years to counteract these ads and to restore civility to the campus community when they have been published. Students, campus professionals and local community leaders necessarily play the major role in this effort. The Holocaust is a central tragedy in the sweep of Jewish and human history and a trauma that continues to inform Jewish life today. It is also a cautionary tale about human character that deserves retelling in every generation, to Jews and non-Jews alike. By fighting Holocaust denial on campuses we honor the memory of the victims, confront the forces of hatred, and help shape a responsible new generation of Americans. We urge you to join us in this effort. |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+====Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups. ==== |
|
14 |
+**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 |
|
15 |
+When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking |
|
16 |
+AND |
|
17 |
+are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling. |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+====Hate speech chills campus behavior – this turns AC impacts. Tsesis 10**(Tsesis, Alexander. "Burning Crosses On Campus: University Hate Speech Codes." Connecticut Law Review 617. 2010. Web. December 05, 2016. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/131/.)====** |
|
21 |
+Allowing students or faculty members to intimidate others through hate symbols or expressions favors the bigots' desire to advocate discrimination and violence while denying the victims' reasonable expectation of security while on campus. 29 0 The constitutional importance of the First Amendment to democratic governance and self-assertion does not extend to menacing messages that tend to diminish the targeted group's sense of security and its ability to enjoy college commons areas and to attend university sponsored events.291 Students and faculty members are more likely to think twice before going to hear the college orchestra or heading to the student union if it requires walking through an area where a cross has recently been burned, a swastika has been displayed, or a supremacist rally has taken place. Hate speakers are neither inviting intellectual debate and rejoinder nor seeking political dialogue. Theirs is a campaign of silencing through intimidation-something that threatens the university's "marketplace of ideas" and is no benefit to educational interactions.292 Academic freedom is not alicense for harassment. Neither does hate speech further the pursuit for' truth: calling Jews vermin, blacks apes, women whores, Native Americans savages, Tutsis cockroaches, or Mexicans lazy has nothing to do with truth. These derogatory statements are meant to exclude and stamp certain groups with the label of outsider to the university community. Derisive speech becomes academically punishable when it is meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence. |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+====Codes work – their arguments against it are empirically denied==== |
|
25 |
+**Hodulik 91** ~~Racist Speech on Campus; Wayne Law Review, Vol. 37, Issue 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 1433-1450 Hodulik, Patricia https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr37andstart_page=1433andcollection=journalsandid=1445 //BWSWJ~~ |
|
26 |
+As the controversy over speech rules has continued in the press and other media, |
|
27 |
+AND |
|
28 |
+amendment values appears to have occurred as a result of enforcing the rule. |
|
29 |
+ |
|
30 |
+ |
|
31 |
+====Wisconsin is a good model – tons of colleges enact codes similar to it==== |
|
32 |
+**Hodulik 91** ~~Racist Speech on Campus; Wayne Law Review, Vol. 37, Issue 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 1433-1450 Hodulik, Patricia https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr37andstart_page=1433andcollection=journalsandid=1445 //BWSWJ~~ |
|
33 |
+To assess the policy implications of adopting university rules regulating hate speech, it is |
|
34 |
+AND |
|
35 |
+Wisconsin System-responded with policies or rules prohibiting racist or discriminatory harassment. |