| ... |
... |
@@ -1,69
+1,0 @@ |
| 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." |