Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-11 01:51:12.515
	1	+2017-01-11 01:51:12.0

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,69 @@
	1	+I negate the Resolution Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
	2	+
	3	+We begin with the claim that free speech leads to democratic debate and social progress is a myth – the Affirmative’s faith in the free exchange of ideas displaces a focus on direct action and re-entrenches multiple forms of oppression. Instead, we must reject the Affirmative’s framing of speech and direct pedagogy to focus on direct action against oppression.
	4	+Tillett-Saks 1
	5	+Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/
	6	+
	7	+"In the wake of the Brown University..."
	8	+to
	9	+"...action has always proved necessary."
	10	+
	11	+The Affirmative’s assumption of a property right to free speech assumes an overly idealistic notion of society that ignores economic barriers and is a product of the myth that individuality should be protected at all costs.
	12	+Tillett-Saks 2
	13	+Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/
	14	+
	15	+"Yet there are many critics of the protestors..."
	16	+to
	17	+"...The status quo or progress."
	18	+
	19	+And thus, the Role of the Ballot is to ideologically endorse the debater with the best tangible policy that minimizes oppression.
	20	+
	21	+HATE SPEECH (goes best followed with Hate Speech PIC):
	22	+Disadvantages:
	23	+The Affirmative’s trivialization of hate speech undermines our project against systemic racism and oppression as a whole.
	24	+
	25	+Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech! – hate speech IS a part of complete free speech!
	26	+Volokh 15
	27	+Eugene Volokh,No, There's No "hate Speech" Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4
	28	+
	29	+"Keep hearing about a supposed..."
	30	+to
	31	+"...definition of “hate speech” that I know of."
	32	+
	33	+Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.
	34	+Greenblatt 15
	35	+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
	36	+
	37	+"When police arrived at..."
	38	+to
	39	+"...partners to get the ball rolling."
	40	+
	41	+LINKS:
	42	+Our understanding of hate speech and its impacts are defined by dominant cultural discourses. By minimizing the impacts of hate speech, the Affirmative perpetuates a culture that excludes the experience of minority groups.
	43	+Watterson 1
	44	+(Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)
	45	+
	46	+"The right to speak freely and..."
	47	+to
	48	+"...which we tend to assume sameness."
	49	+
	50	+Aff's representation of hate speech creates a sense of powerlessness for the victims. By refusing to acknowledge suffering, the Affirmative adds to the injury experienced by all forms of oppression.
	51	+We must prioritize the experience of the victim when analyzing instances of oppression. Challenging the dominant discourse is key.
	52	+Watterson 2
	53	+(Kim M. Watterson, 'THE POWER OF WORDS: THE POWER OF ADVOCACY CHALLENGING THE POWER OF HATE SPEECH', 1991 by the University of Pittsburgh Law Review; Kim M. Watterson, 52 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 955 University of Pittsburgh Law Review Summer, 1991, JL)
	54	+
	55	+"Minow discusses the..."
	56	+to
	57	+"...must listen to the voices of others."
	58	+
	59	+
	60	+
	61	+
	62	+TURN:
	63	+Hate speech causes oppression and kills critical pedagogy—turns case
	64	+Gale ‘91
	65	+REIMAGINING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: RACIST SPEECH AND EQUAL LIBERTY* MARY ELLEN GALE** Professor of Law, Whittier College School of Law. A.B. 1962, Radcliffe College/ Harvard University;, J.D. 1971, Yale University. 1991
	66	+
	67	+"When the liberty of..."
	68	+to
	69	+"...ghosts that inhabit our world."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-11 01:51:13.774

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Unknown

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Unknown

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Octas

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dulles George Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Flay NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Katy