Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,40 +1,40 @@
1		-= NC =
	1	+==== They read the 1AC and nothing has changed, this empirically denies their solvency. ====
2	2
3	3
4		-== Case ==
	4	+==== First is the Double Bind — either the harms are the 1ac are true and they cannot solve for their impacts before they control the levers of power OR their harms are constructed for the purpose of alarmism which means you can vote negative on principle. ====
5	5
6	6
7		-==== Racist hate speech destroys the marketplace of ideas. ====
	7	+==== Second – their appeal to legal thought locks in an insular mode of academia hell-bent on the endless repetition of the same ====
8	8
9		-**Weberman, 2010 (Melissa ~~[Law Clerk in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. J.D. from Emory Law~~] "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine." Ohio Northern University Law Review 36 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 553. 2010. Online. LexisNexis.)**
10		-Since the late 1980s, universities have confronted a growing hate speech problem on their
	9	+Schlag 90 (Pierre Schlag, professor of law@ univ. Colorado, stanford law review, november, page lexis)
	10	+In fact, normative legal thought is so much in a hurry that it will
11	11	AND
12		-it, contrary to how the marketplace of ideas is supposed to operate.
	12	+in a position to put any of its wonderful normative advice into effect.
13	13
14	14
15		-==== Hate speech connects with structures of oppression, harming the groups that it is directed towards. ====
	15	+==== No internal link between the plan text and the solvency. ====
16	16
17		-**Weberman, 2010 (Melissa ~~[Law Clerk in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. J.D. from Emory Law~~] "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine." Ohio Northern University Law Review 36 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 553. 2010. Online. LexisNexis.)**
18		-Hate speech harms groups that are the target of the speech. Under the tradition
19		-AND
20		-n39 Hate speech reinforces stereotypes in the public mind that subsequently guide action.
21	21
	18	+==== They are more interested in playing hermeneutic games than engaging in politics, the preoccupation with pretending to be policymakers traps them in a spectator position and bars them from recognizing the bureaucratic violence of legal praxis. ====
22	22
23		-==== Hate speech harms the individual, denying their right to education. ====
24		-
25		-**Weberman, 2010 (Melissa ~~[Law Clerk in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. J.D. from Emory Law~~] "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine." Ohio Northern University Law Review 36 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 553. 2010. Online. LexisNexis.)**
26		-Beyond causing harm to the target groups, hate speech causes harms to the individual
	20	+Schlag 90 (Pierre Schlag, professor of law@ univ. Colorado, stanford law review, november, page lexis)
	21	+All of this can seem very funny. That's because it is very funny.
27	27	AND
28		-to ensure equal access to education and prevent interference with the educational process.
	23	+who are largely the manipulated constructions of bureaucratic practices — academic and otherwise.
29	29
30	30
31		-==== Hate speech denies targeted groups of the basic rights. ====
	26	+==== (_) They do not own a unique internal link to deliberation – every plan of action defends certain orientations towards the world which means that clash over those orientations is just as predictable and reciprocal as defending the merits of the plan in a vacuum. ====
32	32
33		-**Lee, 2001 (Orville ~~[Asst. Prof. of Sociology at the new School~~]. "Weapons for the Weak? Democratizing the Force of Words in an Uncivil Society." Law & Social Inquiry 26.4 (Autumn, 2001): 847-890. JSTOR.)**
34		-Acts of symbolic violence targeting women and racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities,
	28	+
	29	+==== The assumption of 1AC solvency papers over reality with normative legal talk, emotionally disconnecting them from the implications of the speech act ====
	30	+
	31	+**Delgado 91** (richard delgado , colorado law professor, 139 pa. L. Rev. 933, april)
	32	+But what is the cash value of all this priest-talk in the law
35	35	AND
36		-be trusted to decide speech restrictions without evaluating the expressive content of speech.
	34	+found in cases where the Supreme Court has been faced with subsistence claims.
37	37
	36	+
	37	+
38	38	== K ==
39	39
40	40