Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[74]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[69]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[74]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-15 01:21:02.597
	1	+2017-02-15 01:21:02.0

Caselist.CitesClass[69]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,10 @@
	1	+Free Speech is a tool used to white supremacist to further extremist movements and oppress people of color. Carpenter 1/19
	2	+Carpenter, Bennett. "Free speech, Black lives and white fragility." The Chronicle. January 19, 2016. http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility.SGK
	3	+This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs? It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color." Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree.
	4	+
	5	+Empirically proven - Free Speech perpetuates extremist ideologies. NCHRE
	6	+"First Amendment and Racial Terrorism." National Center for Human Rights Education. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm.SGK
	7	+U.S. courts consistently fail to acknowledge that the purpose of racist speech is to continue the subordination of one people by another. This leads to a legalistic distinction between acts that constitute racial terrorism and the words and ideas that motivate the attackers. In our country, acts — assault, battery, vandalism, arson, murder, lynchings, physical harassment — are punishable under our court system. But words — like nigger — or symbols — such as Nazi swastikas or burning crosses ~-~- are protected by the courts as acts of individual expression. To protect the status quo of white domination, our legal justice system first formally excluded African Americans from equality, and it now stands passively aside while private actors do the dirty work of legitimating social inequality and silencing victims. U.S. courts have not always privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African Americans and other people of color. A pertinent Supreme Court case was decided in 1952 after two race riots in Illinois in which more than one hundred men, women and children were killed, forcing another 6,000 African Americans to flee the state. In that case, Beauharnais v. Illinois, the head of the White Circle League distributed a leaflet declaring that African Americans would terrorize white neighborhoods with "rapes, robberies, knives, guns and marijuana." The pamphleteer was convicted when the court decided that libelous statements aimed at groups of people, like those aimed at individuals, fall outside First Amendment protection. While it was certainly a victory for the anti-racist movement, this decision did not go far enough in banning the activities of racist individuals, largely because the government was not yet ready to outlaw its own racist policies. The Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation decision occurred two years later in 1954. On the other hand, the current Supreme Court is dominated by the right wing. Its interpretations disconnect racial terrorism from the harm inflicted on victims. In 1992, the court decided in R.A.V. vs. St. Paul that a cross burned in the front yard of an African American family by white teenagers was a form of protected symbolic speech. This decision effectively trumped the family’s right to live in their home free from racial terrorism. Using the artificial distinction between speech and action, the Court decided that the act of burning a cross to intimidate a black family was equivalent to freedom of speech.
	8	+Extremism causes genocide and kills minority participation in education. . Arthur 11
	9	+Arthur, Joyce. "The Limits of Free Speech - Rewire." Rewire. September 21, 2011. https://rewire.news/article/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5/.SGK
	10	+The apparent assumption of free speech defenders is that offensive speech is essentially harmless—that is, just words with no demonstrable link to consequences. But questioning whether speech can really incite someone to bad behaviour seems irresponsibly obtuse. Obviously, words have consequences and frequently inspire actions. A primary purpose of language is to communicate with others in order to influence them. If that weren’t so, there would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for political office, no motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements, and no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others to act. The majority of hate speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. It’s no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it’s very easy to defend hate speech when it doesn’t hurt you personally. But hate speech is destructive to the community at large because it is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those who take the speaker’s message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceived acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and genocide, especially when the state engages in hate speech, such as in Nazi Germany. Hate speech also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many years or a lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportunities, push them into poverty, isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflict with authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court stated that hate speech can cause “loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct.” The court agreed that “hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners…that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior,” which can increase “acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.” In democratic societies that stand for equality and freedom—often with taxpayer-funded programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups—it makes no sense to tolerate hate speech that actively works to oppose those values. Further, hate speech violates the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect. A society that allows hate speech is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level—politically, economically, and socially—and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-15 01:21:05.986

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tim Pollard

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Costa Canyon BC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+74

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Engel Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB - DA - White Supremacy

Tournament

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