Changes for page Greenhill J Zhou Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:35
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-03-19 03:17:21. 5671 +2017-03-19 03:17:21.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,58 @@ 1 +====Text: ~~Public colleges and universities in the United States~~ should establish restrictions on speech consistent with Peter Byrne's proposal and remove all other restrictions on constitutionally protected speech.==== 2 + 3 + 4 +====The CP PICs out of hate speech – here's the solvency advocate==== 5 +J. Peter Byrne 91 ~~Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center.~~, "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University," 79 Geo. L.J. 399 (1991), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1577, ghs//BZ 6 +This article examines the constitutionality of university prohibitions of public expression that insults members of 7 +AND 8 +fears and prejudices rather than to respect for others and informed judgment.3 9 + 10 + 11 +====Solves the aff – the counterplan establishes comprehensive definitions, acquittal procedures, and student-faculty panels – key to reversing hateful ideology and empowering excluded groups==== 12 +J. Peter Byrne 91 ~~Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center.~~, "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University," 79 Geo. L.J. 399 (1991), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1577, ghs//BZ 13 +Disciplinary rules are the least effective way that a university can enhance the quality 14 +AND 15 +the educational environment for blameless students against wanton and hurtful ranting. 16 + 17 + 18 +====Solves censorship – hate speech has no truth value but to derogate victims and undercut academic accessibility ==== 19 +J. Peter Byrne 91 ~~Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center.~~, Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University, 79 Geo. L.J. 399 (1991), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1577, ghs//BZ 20 +The university's first commitment is to truth. As argued above, the uni- 21 +AND 22 +means, for rational argument always has a privileged place in the university. 23 + 24 + 25 +====Speech codes establish public norms and check prejudice – the aff allows rampant stereotyping and reinforces racist mindsets==== 26 +Richard Delgado 82 ~~J.D. University of California, Berkeley, 1974. Professor of Law, UCLA Law School.~~, "WORDS THAT WOUND: A TORT ACTION FOR RACIAL INSULTS, EPITHETS, AND NAME-CALLING," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17 (1982), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2000918, ghs//BZ 27 +Unlike most of the actions for which tort law provides redress to the victim, 28 +AND 29 +racial slurs is a promis- ing vehicle for the eradication of racism. 30 + 31 + 32 +====PIC solves the internal links of the aff – ==== 33 +A~~ Vagueness – the reason – comprehensive definitions — 34 +B~~ Empowerment – student-faculty panels – WE CAN STILL HAVE DISCOURSE – just occurs on disciplinary hearings 35 + 36 + 37 +==DA== 38 + 39 + 40 +====Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now. ==== 41 +**Sutton 16** Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full //LADI 42 +A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease 43 +AND 44 +lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder. 45 + 46 + 47 +====Expanding constitutionally protected speech sanctions hate speech – the First amendment legitimizes hatred and justifies the right to oppressive speech==== 48 +Boler 04, Boler, Megan ~~Megan Boler is a Full Professor in the Department of Social Justice Education, at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto.~~. "All Speech Is Not Free: The Ethics of Affirmative Action Pedagogy." Counterpoints 240 (2004): 3-13, ghs//BZ 49 +On what basis might one justify an affirmative action pedagogy? The first justifica- 50 +AND 51 +worldviews to be shattered, in itself a pro- foundly emotionally charged experience 52 + 53 + 54 +====Hate speech inflicts psychological violence across multiple generations and millennia – also justifies mass oppression and primes society for genocide ==== 55 +Delgado and Stefacic '09, Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. "FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH." WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf, ghs//BZ 56 +II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE EVALUATION OF HARMS HAS BEEN INCOMPLETE One way 57 +AND 58 +at odds with the underlying rationales of a system of free expression.111 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-19 03:17:22.234 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jake Davis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland Prep MS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +28 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill J Zhou Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Hate Speech PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Woodward