Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[8]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-17 20:48:01.735
	1	+2016-12-17 20:48:01.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,120 @@
	1	+I affirm the resolution. Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
	2	+To clarify, here’s a comprehensive list of things the First Amendment does not permit – meaningless obscenity, child pornography, expression that in and of itself causes injury, and remarks intended to cause violence
	3	+Ruane 14 (Kathleen Anne Ruane – Legislative Attorney. Her report was published by the Congressional Research Service, which is a branch of government, “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment”, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf,pgs. 1-5, EmmieeM)
	4	+The First Amendment to the united States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no
	5	+AND
	6	+constitutes a “true threat,” and not against mere “political hyperbole.”
	7	+ Framework (5:38)
	8	+The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing as contextualized by impacts on case. This is the ROB.
	9	+The constitutive obligation of the state is to protect citizen interest—individual obligations are not applicable in the public sphere. Goodin 95
	10	+Robert E. Goodin. Philosopher of Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 26-7
	11	+The great adventure of utilitarianism as a guide to public conduct is that it avoids
	12	+AND
	13	+thus understood is, I would argue, a uniquely defensible public philosophy.
	14	+Util is axiomatically true - all value stems from experienced wellbeing. Harris 10
	15	+Sam Harris 2010. CEO Project Reason; PHD UCLA Neuroscience; BA Stanford Philosophy. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.”
	16	+I believe that we will increasingly understand good and evil, right and wrong,
	17	+AND
	18	+, therefore, consequences and conscious states remain the foundation of all values.
	19	+Moral uncertainty means we default to preventing extinction under any ethical framework
	20	+BOSTROM 11
	21	+(2011) Nick Bostrom, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford Martin School and Faculty of Philosophy
	22	+These reflections on moral uncertainty suggests an alternative, complementary way of
	23	+AND
	24	+value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe.
	25	+Death is the worst form of evil since it destroys the subject itself.
	26	+Paterson 03 – Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, “A Life Not Worth Living?”, Studies in Christian Ethics.
	27	+Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that
	28	+AND
	29	+the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82
	30	+Innovation (4:49)
	31	+Restrictions on free speech are rapidly increasing, destroying the educational environment
	32	+Slater 16 (Tom Slator – editor of this book (it’s a collection of essays from many different people). He also wrote the introduction from which this was cut. Deputy Editor of Spiked, runs Free Speech University Ratings, and has written for The Times/The Telegraph/Independent, “Unsafe Space: The Crisis of Free Speech on Campus”, pgs. 2 - 3, https://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=andid=vdP7CwAAQBAJandoi=fndandpg=PP1anddq=college+speech+restrictions+risingandots=YBNOvRNy1Tandsig=BmpSFkTJts9QsI1YcDAjxmB6dpQ#v=onepageandq=college20speech20restrictions20risingandf=false, EmmieeM)
	33	+Over the past few years, campus censorship has reached epidemic levels. In 2015
	34	+AND
	35	+dwell on the easy arguments and defend only the most socially acceptable targets.
	36	+This hamstrings innovation ~-~-- universities require free exchange of knowledge as a pre-requisite to education and regulations risk transforming academies into authoritarian structures
	37	+ACTA 13 (American Council of Trustees and Alumni – independent non-profit that is focused on maintaining academic freedom and accountability among US colleges. “Free to Teach, Free to Learn: Understanding and Maintaining Academic Freedom in Higher Education”, pgs. 23-25, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560924.pdf, EmmieeM)
	38	+The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of
	39	+AND
	40	+be left to the informal processes of suasion, example, and argument.
	41	+Free speech on public colleges is a key internal link to scientific discovery ~-~-- campus speech restrictions allows for worse forms of coercion that skews data and a culture of open debate is key to advancement
	42	+Economist 16 (“Under Attack”, “The Inconvenient Truth”, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack, EmmieeM)
	43	+Intolerance among Western liberals also has wholly unintended consequences. Even despots know that locking
	44	+AND
	45	+Win the argument without resorting to force. And grow a tougher hide.
	46	+Constant innovation in the chemical industry is key to check emerging diseases
	47	+NRC 2002, National Research Council Committee on Challenges for Chemical Sciences in the 21st century “National Security and Homeland Defense” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114822/)//a-berg
	48	+
	49	+Many drugs are produced by either chemical synthesis or biosynthetic processes. Recent advances in
	50	+AND
	51	+them for their biological activities or functions also remains a challenge to industry.
	52	+Absent innovation, new pathogens guarantee extinction ~-~-- decreasing biodiversity means spread between hosts is easier which checks empirics and generic defense
	53	+Yule ‘13
	54	+(et al; Jeffrey V. Yule – Herbert McElveen Professor of Applied and Natural Sciences At the School of Biological Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, Published April 2nd – Humanities 2013, 2, 147–159; doi:10.3390/h2020147)
	55	+Since the 1940s, humans in industrialized nations have been relatively sheltered from the threat
	56	+AND
	57	+not, and the potential failure of our species has considerable biological implications.
	58	+Independently, competitiveness is key to US dominance – we need to keep innovating faster to ensure economic prosperity and hegemony
	59	+Segal 04 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
	60	+Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html
	61	+
	62	+The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new
	63	+AND
	64	+, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
	65	+Loss of competitiveness results in great power conflict—retrenchment makes war inevitable and ensures the US would be dragged in – that causes your heg bad impacts so it’s try or die for the AFF
	66	+Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2011 (“The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8th, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-08-2011)
	67	+
	68	+Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to
	69	+AND
	70	+leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
	71	+Terror (2:58)
	72	+Colleges can serve as unique places that prevent people from becoming trapped in echo chambers, but college censorship is ruining that ~-~-- students are becoming more extremist, less understanding, and convinced that they are at war with an evil “Other”
	73	+Lukianoff no date (Greg Lukianoff – attorney and CEO at the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (FIRE); published in Wall Street Journal, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, and many others; has appeared on CBS Evening News, NBC’s Today Show, and many others,“How Colleges Create the ‘Expectation of Confirmation’”, “Polarization and the Thickening Walls of Our Echo Chamber” – “Can College Help Break Down the Expectation of Confirmation?”, http://www.soamcontest.com/content/how-colleges-create-expectation-confirmation, EmmieeM)
	74	+In his 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, journalist Bill Bishop compellingly argues that the United States is growing more politically polarized partially because Americans are increasingly moving to cities, neighborhoods, and counties that reflect their values and political beliefs. The reality of this clustering was laid out in even greater detail in Charles Murray’s 2012 book, Coming Apart, which cited extensive data about the increasing isolation of neighborhoods according to both political viewpoints and economic class. At the same time, the physical isolation that Bishop and Murray discuss is accompanies by increased opportunities to interact in online environments that reflect our existing biases. This trend was already fostered by twenty-four-hour news environments that reflect our existing biases. This trend was already only accelerated as the amount of media produced by partisan websites has grown enough to occupy devoted readers every minute of every day. Left to their own devices, humans have a tendency to prefer to hear their existing views reflected back to them – and technological advancement has only increased our ability to achieve twenty-four-hour confirmation. We should be concerned about creating echo chambers. Well-documented social science research demonstrates that people are prone to becoming more radical, and less understanding of opposing viewpoints, the more they cluster together with the like-minded. This affinity can lead to polarization and an intensified sense of tribalism in society, as we see our opponents increasingly as something more akin to alien enemies than fellow citizens with whom we disagree (Sunstein). It’s important, however, to step back for a moment and think about how this polarization may very well be the natural result of what we might otherwise consider progress. The aggregation of people into mutually sympathetic niches not only accords with the basic American right to assembly, but it also follows from the general advance of prosperity and leisure. Ronal Inglehart has outlines the “post-materialist society.” Starting with work he published in the 1970s up through and including his word today, Inglehart theorizes that as societies become more affluent and move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they increasingly seek greater opportunities not only to express themselves and their values but also to have a sense of belonging in like-minded communities. Seen in this light, the clustering of like-minded Americans seems only natural and is indeed part of the vision of a society we might all find seductive. In my everyday life I call these “problems of comfort,” in that increasingly affluent societies generate problems that are the result of relative historic abundance and security. (The modern obesity epidemic, for example, is a “problem of comfort.”) In this case, polarization is the natural result of people seeking out comfortable, self-affirming, morally coherent, and sympathetic tendencies that increase over time – as well as the illiberal mores and communication breakdowns that accompany them. It is all the more pressing, then, that we model and reform cultural institutions to combat these downsides. There is, in fact, an existing institution that can help America minimize the negative consequences of a society whose citizens increasingly are able to cocoon themselves in self-affirming communities: higher education. Whereas once only a small percentage of Americans enrolled in college, as of 2012, as many as two-thirds of high school graduates attend college for at least some amount of time (National Center for Education Statistics). That percentage gets even higher when we factor in the number of citizens who take college classes at some point in their lives. Both the Bush and Obama administration have pressed for more access and admissions to college, and employers increasingly demand workers with skills typically acquired in postsecondary coursework. The result is an everybody-should-go-to-college mode of thought that makes higher education a central feature of American culture and society. Given its power and reach, higher education would seem to provide a ready-made solution to the problem of a society that naturally fragments into tighter echo chambers. After all, in theory at least, higher education valorizes the Socratic style of skeptical questioning and the systematization of doubt as represented by great scientific heroes such as Newton and Einstein. Also, in the 1960s and 1970s, the academy largely embraced the free-speech, “question authority” culture, and its impact reached beyond the campus walls to become a standard feature of popular culture and political discussion. American higher education should, therefore, be at the vanguard of teaching students to examine their assumptions, to engage in debate and discussion, to seek out opposing viewpoints, and to cultivate the crucial intellectual habit of applying skepticism to one’s most dearly held beliefs. Unfortunately, as I illustrated in my 2012 book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, higher education is failing to instill in students these intellectual habits, as is, to a surprising degree, teaching students not to question much at all. In Unlearning Liberty, I discuss my twelve years fighting for free speech, academic freedom, and the right to dissent on college campuses at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). My experience and that of my colleagues leaves me consistently appalled by how transgressions can land a student of professor in trouble. I cannot do justice to the thousands of cases I’ve seen of censorship on campus (see FIRE’s blog, The Torch – http://thefire.org/torch ~-~- for an ongoing record of issues and incidents), but some standout examples over the years include: A professor at Brandeis University was found guilty of racial harassment for explaining the historical origins of a racial epithet (Guess). Numerous cases where campuses refused to recognize Christian students groups because of their stance on sexuality and traditional marriage (Shibley). A student at Modesto Junior College who was refused the right to hand out copies of the Constitution in the public areas of campus on Constitution Day because he did not request advance state permission and did not limit his activities to the campus’s tiny free speech zone (Kopan). For the better part of two decades, researchers have studied the reservations college students seem to have about sharing their opinions and engaging in debate in class. While sociologists scratch their heads as to why this might be, a 2010 study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities might provide insight (Dey). The study simply asked students, professors, and staff if they believed it was “safe to hold unpopular positions on college campuses.” Note how this question is worded: it does not ask if it is safe to express unpopular opinions of view, play devil’s advocate, or engage in challenging through experimentation, but merely if it is “safe” simply to “hold” a point of view. Despite this weak wording, only 40 percent of college freshmen strongly agreed. That percentage gets worse when put to sophomores, and then worse still when put to juniors. Notably, only 30 percent of seniors strongly agree. Apparently, as students learn more about the academic environment on their campuses, they become more pessimistic about their ability to dissent, disagree, and debate. Tellingly, the most pessimistic group on campus was college professors, of whom only 16.7 percent strongly agreed that it is “safe to hold” unpopular points of view on campus. The Chronicle of Higher Education, perhaps the most influential niche publication for higher education professionals, placed an interesting spin on this study (Chapman). Despite the fact that the authors themselves were troubled by the low level of “strongly agree” responses to such a weakly worded question, the Chronicle reported the findings as positive because 45 percent of students answered they “somewhat agree” that it is “safe to hold unpopular positions” on campus. If nearly half of students only somewhat agree that it is safe to merely hold an unpopular view on campus, this does not indicate a positive environment for dissent or debate on campus. And again, optimism about the openness of the academic environment declined as students, employees, and professors spent more time on campus. As my experience at FIRE can attest, this pessimism is warranted. But students generally avoid getting in trouble by following four simple rules: Talk to the students you already agree with. Join ideological groups that reflect your existing beliefs. Do not disagree with professors whose egos cannot take it. In general, shy away from discussing controversial topics. These four guidelines can keep most students out of the dean’s office and free of their peers’ displeasure during their time in college. Unfortunately, these rules only reinforce a problem of clustering and polarization that Mark Bauerlein and many others have observed accelerating on campus over the years – a problem that we know already exists in broader society. The rules also neutralize the unique opportunity that higher education makes possible: having intelligent discussions across lines of ideological difference. The harm of these bad intellectual habits was perhaps best illustrated in a 2011 book titled Academically Adrift: Limited learning on College Campuses (Arum and Roksa), which demonstrated that students are not showing improvements in their critical thinking skills from matriculation to graduation. Part of this evaluation tested students’ ability to articulate more than one side of an argument. To a disturbing degree, students across institutions could not effectively accomplish this basic intellectual task. If campuses lived up to the promise of encouraging robust debate rather than squelching it, we could expect far better results. What’s more, there can be little doubt that university students are taking the bad habits they learn on campus into the larger society once they graduate. In Diana Mutz’s 2006 book, Hearing the Other Side, the author cites striking evidence of an inverse relationship between how much education one has acquired and how many political disagreements one undergoes in an average month. In other words, people with a high school education or less are the most likely to engage in discussions along lines of political and philosophical disagreement, while those with higher levels of education are less likely. This is precisely the opposite effect that one would expect from an educational environment that properly teaches students that educated people seek out for discussion those with whom they disagree. Confirmation bias refers to the human tendency to prefer data that confirm preexisting hypotheses and discount contrary evidence. It is, to put it mildly, generally considered to be a problem to be overcome, not only in scientific contexts, but in cultural and political settings as well. Unfortunately, given Mutz’s evidence and the caseload at FIRE, we can conclude that higher education seems actually to work toward the opposite goal, promoting in some students a provisional openness to contrary opinions, but an expectation of confirmation: that is, an expectation that their biases should be, at best, validated, but at the very least, not challenged. In a distorted reflection of how fighting confirmation bias helps bring science and other disciplines to better and sturdier ideas, the establishment on campus of this expectation of confirmation threatens to allow thinner, less coherent, and less useful (but more comforting) ideas to flourish. So, American academia, an institution that should help us fight the tendency of Americans to cluster ourselves in self-affirming cliques, instead encourages citizens to reinforce the walls of their echo chambers. Indeed, colleges today instill in students an unrealistic expectation that their environment should conform to their existing biases and beliefs. As they do so, young people earning college degrees fail to recognize that they inhabit a pluralistic society made up of individuals and groups with discrete and sometimes conflicting interests and outlooks, and when they encounter opposing forces, they judge them as wrongheaded or worse and act toward their suppression. Is it possible to set things right? To produce a kind of higher education experience that teaches a generation the creativity, insight, and wisdom that is unleashed by stepping outside our comfortable self-affirming cliques to engage those with whom we disagree and figure out why we disagree? I’m not always optimistic, but I can chart promising steps toward reform. Perhaps the most important thing that universities can do is simply to require students to engage in formal debates on meaningful and controversial topics as part of general education requirements. Part of students’ orientation, too, should involve instruction in productive academic engagement, including the axiom that we fight offensive speech not with censorship but with contrary words. The practice of making oneself take the other side of an argument would help critical thinking skills, and it would also reduce the likelihood of people viewing those on the “other side” as representatives of societal evil. Being able fully to comprehend the opposing side of an argument is a vital skill that will only become more important given that the trend toward self-affirming physical and online environments is unlikely to stop. Even these modest proposals face serious challenges, the magnitude of which was brought home to me by a student with whom I spoke at Harvard in the spring of 2013. He approached me after a speech, saying that he completely believed in everything I had to say about free speech and debate on campus, but that his attempts to get Oxford-style debates on serious issues to happen was met with constant pushback. On the truly controversial issues, whether they were immigration, affirmative action, or the “War on Terror,” he added, the student population would not accept anyone representing the “other side” of the issue. Obviously, it is hard to have real discussions without a willingness to put an onus on the listener to deal with hearing an opinion he or she might dislike or believe to be wrong. After all, a key measure of being an intellectual used to be how well the thinker in question knew the details of opponents’ best arguments. We should instruct students that educated people see it as a duty to seek out intelligent people with whom they disagree for debate and discussion. This would require a major cultural shift away from the way campuses currently operate and is nearly impossible to achieve as long as the “right not the be offended” and the “expectation of confirmation” remain a reality on campus. If we should be so lucky as to have a global environment in which relative material comfort continues to spread, such progress is going to produce new and emergent problems. Economic advancement, we must realize, may entail certain social and cultural costs that education institutions must address. In much the same way that regular exercise and a disciplined diet help in the fight against obesity, teaching the intellectual habit of fighting confirmation bias, rather than expecting to have views affirmed, is crucial to the intellectual development and civic health of our society. Higher education could and should play a crucial role in this process – but it needs to take a long, hard look at itself and ask if it actually creates an environment that is conducive to the bold questioning and uncomfortable discussions that intellectual and societal innovation demands.
	75	+Freedom of expression allows extremist viewpoints to be challenged through debate, which demonstrates their flaws and de-motivates others from adopting them ~-~- speech bans only lead to hostility, divided communities, and push-back, which exacerbates terrorism
	76	+Lombardi 15 (Marco Lombardi – member of the Italian Team for Security, Terroristic Issues, and Managing Emergencies, which is a research department in the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, “Countering Radicalisation and Violent Extremism Among Youth to Prevent Terrorism”, https://books.google.com/books?id=_kAoBgAAQBAJandpg=PA3andlpg=PA3anddq=preventing+free+discussion+leads+to+extremismandsource=blandots=TJ8fW6700zandsig=Lz4MWuGl6LkEYxy5RdXBDrCAxfUandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwiq56aDsvTQAhUS1GMKHRNUBC4Q6AEIXzAN#v=onepageandq=preventing20free20discussion20leads20to20extremismandf=false , pgs. 3- 4, EmmieeM)
	77	+First, we should carefully calibrate prevention activities and avoid catch-all, indiscriminate
	78	+AND
	79	+law enforcement or secret services because this would discredit and ultimately sabotage them.
	80	+This is especially pertinent in the case of colleges – students are much more likely to be recruited or adopt extremist views
	81	+Borum 5 (Randy Borum – Professor and Director of Intelligence Studies in the School of Information and Academic Coordination for Cybersecurity at the University of Southern Florida; Chuck Tilby – member of the Police Department, “Anarchist Direct Action: A Challenge for Law Enforcement”, “Recruitment, pg. 214, http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552andcontext=mhlp_facpub, EmmieeM)
	82	+It should not be surprising to learn that jails and prisons are major recruiting sites
	83	+AND
	84	+to be young, energetic, and idealistic with time available to act.
	85	+Lone wolf attackers are a unique threat – harder to track due to no required communication and much more deadly due to lack of constraints
	86	+Simon 13 (Jeffrey Simon – runs a terror and security consulting company; former RAND analyst; UCLA lecturer; published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Foreign Policy, The Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, The Columbia Journal of World Business, and The New York Times, “Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat”, https://books.google.com/books?hl=enandlr=andid=MQxRCwAAQBAJandoi=fndandpg=PA3andots=w6d3tqK3hqandsig=zd9pzTPhaC2w5xBQPm1Uc3FSDHc#v=onepageandqandf=false,
	87	+pgs. 4, EmmieeM)
	88	+With the lone wolf terrorist threat growing and attracting increased attention throughout the world,
	89	+AND
	90	+dangerous because sometimes they can be mentally unstable, yet still very effective.
	91	+Currently, the biggest terrorist threat to the US is white supremacist lone wolves ~-~-- they kill more Americans than jihadists and show more desire to use WMDs
	92	+Blair 14 (Charles P. Blair, Senior Fellow on State and Non-State Threats for the Federation of American Scientists who teaches classes on terrorism and WMD technology at John Hopkins University and George Mason University, “Looking clearly at right-wing terrorism,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 9 June 2014, http://thebulletin.org/looking-clearly-right-wing-terrorism7232, *fc)
	93	+Five years ago the US Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division released
	94	+AND
	95	+exaggerated, but neither should it be suppressed for political or ideological reasons.
	96	+Dispersion of technology enables lone wolf terrorists to access chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBURNs) – the impact will be mass casualties and unprecedented disruption of financial and social systems
	97	+Ackerman and Pinson 14 Gary A. ,Director of the Special Projects Division at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), University of Maryland, Lauren E., Senior Research/Project Manager at START and PhD student at Yale University, “An Army of One: Assessing CBRN Pursuit and Use by Lone Wolves and Autonomous Cells,” Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 2014
	98	+The first question to answer is whence the concerns about the nexus between CBRN weapons
	99	+AND
	100	+well influence the weapon selection of lone actor jihadists in Western nations. 19
	101	+Solvency (0:48)
	102	+Outlawing hate-speech is counter-productive – rules will be turned on minorities, discussions become diverted towards fights over censorship, and students are taught to rely on their oppressors for protection. The AFF allows for counterspeech, which creates community mobilization, turns third-parties away from hate-speech, and is empowering – empirically proven to work
	103	+Calleros 95 (Charles R. Calleros – Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “PATERNALISM, COUNTERSPEECH, AND CAMPUS HATE-SPEECH CODES: A REPLY TO DELGADO AND YUN”,
	104	+ “II. Reply to the Authors’ Rejection of The Arguments of the Moderate Left”, EmmieeM)
	105	+To challenge them on their strongest ground, I will work within the analytic framework
	106	+AND
	107	+it sparked counterspeech and community action that strengthened the campus support for diversity.
	108	+Censoring hate speech entrenches racism ~-~-- extremists get to look like martyrs, offensive terms are re-coded and then normalized, and it abstracts from material change. Also, attempts to censor something empirically make it more appealing and leads to greater publication
	109	+Heinze 16 (Eric Heinze – Professor of Law and Humanities at the University of London, “Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship”, “The Prohibitionist Challenge”, pgs. 149-152, https://books.google.com/books?id=UJJyCwAAQBAJandpg=PA150andlpg=PA150anddq=censoring+hate+speech+helps+the+right-wing+martyrandsource=blandots=aVdz0PZticandsig=prvOZgxAtkhebwxC7EDhcb6HDicandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwj0xaWXofLQAhXEwlQKHcqWDwUQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepageandq=censoring20hate20speech20helps20the20right-wing20martyrandf=false, EmmieeM)
	110	+American oppositionists have lacked domestic empirical evidence of ineffectiveness, available on the continent,
	111	+AND
	112	+Jean-Marie LePen’s self-styled image as a free speech martyr.
	113	+
	114	+
	115	+
	116	+
	117	+
	118	+Yet he fails to notice that it is precisely the penalties for speech, which
	119	+AND
	120	+still-unconquered, non-viewpoint-punitive territory within public discourse.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-17 20:48:04.282

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+idk

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+idk

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker Malyugina Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JF ~-~- Util AFF

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+CPS