| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,12 @@ |
|
1 |
+Interpretation – The affirmative must only eliminate restrictions on constitutionally protected speech – they cannot fiat or gain offense from removing a speech regulation that’s constitutional. Constitutionally protected is limited by exceptions created by the Supreme Court – its protected unless there’s a specific exemption in play. |
|
2 |
+Shapiro (Professor Shapiro, University of Mainz, "Freedom of Speech", https://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter4text.htm, 2001) |
|
3 |
+IV. FREEDOM OF SPEECH … unconstitutional content-based distinctions. |
|
4 |
+Violation – Lipson is about safe spaces, but student rights to safe spaces are constitutionally protected. |
|
5 |
+Palumbo-Liu (David Palumbo-Liu, "Students Have A Legal Right To Safe Spaces", posted on Nov. 17, 2015, https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidpalumboliu/students-have-a-legal-right-to-safe-spaces?utm_term=.bkpzjJ5qq#.dop921xoo) |
|
6 |
+Last week, several … for you, either.” |
|
7 |
+Standards |
|
8 |
+1. Field Context – |
|
9 |
+2. Limits |
|
10 |
+There are thousands of speech codes and policies that the aff can choose to overturn – destroying my ability to engage the aff. |
|
11 |
+Lukianoff (Greg Lukianoff, "Campus Speech Codes: Absurd, Tenacious, and Everywhere", May 23, 2008 , https://www.nas.org/articles/Campus_Speech_Codes_Absurd_Tenacious_and_Everywhere) |
|
12 |
+For our 2007 … and 2 green. |