| ... |
... |
@@ -1,36
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-==T== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-====Interpretation: The affirmative must defend that public colleges and universities in the Unites States ought to restrict NO constitutionally protected speech. To clarify they may not specify any one type of constitutionally protected speech that ought not be restricted.==== |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-====Counterplans by the negative that PIC out of specific kinds of constitutionally protected speech are illegitimate.==== |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-====Violation: The 1AC only expands free speech zones to the entire campus, but it stills allow for restrictions and speech codes to exist in these speech zones, which means there are still some restrictions of constitutionally protected speech.==== |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-====Vote Neg==== |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
-====Textuality – repeated court rulings go neg.==== |
| 17 |
|
-**Elder '91(David S. Elder, October 1991, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?" "Plain Language' is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the State Bar Plain English Committee. Assistant editor is George H. Hathaway. Through this column the Committee hopes to promote the use of plain English in the law. Want to contribute a plain English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf ~| SP)** |
| 18 |
|
-The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in |
| 19 |
|
-AND |
| 20 |
|
-(1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra) |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-====Outweighs:==== |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
- |
| 26 |
|
-====Semantic Context – yes, any may have a bunch of different, more inclusive definitions, but only ours takes into consideration groups of words together. "security for any claim due or to become due to" is the passage analyzed in Gibson v Agricultural Life, which mirrors the structure of the words in the res, with "any" followed by a singular object (ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech).==== |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
-====Legal Context – Courts are the definitive interpreters of what a law and its words mean. Defer to courts over the slew of dictionary definition coming in the 1ar, they lack the context necessary to evaluate semantics in a legal setting. By defending a subsection of constitutional rights, they have literally inserted their own words into the resolution, which have fundamentally changed the policy they defend.==== |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
- |
| 32 |
|
-====Limits – Free Speech is incredibly broad. Star this card, it literally says the only coherent way to conceive of the free speech debate is to consider its few exceptions, which is a comparison of the whole res with its converse.==== |
| 33 |
|
-**Silvergate '05 (Harvey A. Silvergate, attorney in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is the co-founder, with Alan Charles Kors, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for which he also serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Directors. January 2005, "FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus," https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/free-speech-2.pdf ~| SP)** |
| 34 |
|
-The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make "no law…abridging the freedom |
| 35 |
|
-AND |
| 36 |
|
-will briefly describe the limited categories of so-called "unprotected speech." |