Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[45]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[46]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[45]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-17 12:15:17.419
	1	+2016-12-17 12:15:17.0

Caselist.CitesClass[46]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,56 @@
	1	+Concede the value:
	2	+
	3	+====The standard is consistency with universal freedom. ====
	4	+
	5	+
	6	+====First, an agent's will acts on a law that it gives to itself. If pleasure were a law to you, then you would straight-away do the pleasurable act, but since you're autonomous, you can reason about taking the action. Thus a condition of action is that the will is self-determined. ====
	7	+
	8	+=====KORSGAARD: =====
	9	+"Self-Constitution in the Ethics of Plato and Kant" by Christine M. Korsgaard LW-DD
	10	+"Now I'm going to argue that that sort of willing is impossible. The
	11	+AND
	12	+identification with the principle of choice on which you act." (123)
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====And, a rational will must set ends within a system of reciprocal constraints. Anything else justifies that someone could impede your ability to achieve your end in the first place, which also means reason constrains end-based frameworks. ====
	16	+
	17	+=====SIYAR: =====
	18	+Jamsheed Aiam Siyar: Kant's Conception of Practical Reason. Tufts University, 1999 LW-DD
	19	+"Recall that insofar as I represent a rationally determined end, I represent it
	20	+AND
	21	+as I represent it as constraining my actions." (80-81)
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+====Second, Analytic ====
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+====Third, Analytic ====
	28	+
	29	+Impact Calc: Analytic
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====Freedom implies an innate right to determine the course of your actions. In the state of nature, might rather than right governs these judgements. Absent of a public authority, rights violations are inevitable. ====
	33	+
	34	+=====VARDEN:=====
	35	+"A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" by Helga Varden Chapter from: "Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World" edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 // LM-DD
	36	+"The first important distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought issues from Kant's
	37	+AND
	38	+rather than as subject to anyone's arbitrary choices." (46-47)
	39	+
	40	+
	41	+====And, the Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech is protected by the First Amendment so long as it does not indicate an "imminent" threat.^^ ^^ But, seditious speech is never compatible with an omnilateral will and must be restricted. The intent requires the right to destroy the state, which justifies the annihilation of all rights. ====
	42	+
	43	+=====VARDEN 2:=====
	44	+"A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" by Helga Varden Chapter from: "Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World" edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 // LM-DD
	45	+"To understand Kant's condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned
	46	+AND
	47	+, it is a public crime (6: 331)." (52)
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+====And, a public authority interpretation of Kantianism escapes objections of idealism by recognizing that freedom is not protected under idealized private constraints. ====
	51	+
	52	+=====VARDEN 3:=====
	53	+"A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" by Helga Varden Chapter from: "Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World" edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 // LM-DD
	54	+"The second related distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought concerns Kant's explicit
	55	+AND
	56	+citizens' interactions is necessary for rightful interaction on this view." (47)

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-17 12:15:17.947

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Alexander Yoakum

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Texas Academy of Math Science MX

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+19

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cy-Fair Welch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB Kant NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit