Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-18 05:16:27.249
	1	+2017-02-18 05:16:27.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,47 @@
	1	+The question of this debate is whether or not colleges occupy a special status that warrants limiting speech in some ways that we wouldn’t normally limit speech in others. Our argument is not that we should strip away the right to free speech. Rather, the negative’s argument is that college’s occupy a unique intersection of people and purposes that justify certain time, place, manner restrictions that fit within restrictions allowed by the constitution that limit normally constitutionally protected speech.
	2	+
	3	+Therefore, on the negative we advocate that speech normally protected by the constitution should be restricted in university and college dormitories, residence halls or any other location where students formally live. In particular they should reserve the right to regulate aggressive speech directed at students in a discriminatory manner. Press 08 Jd candidate at Northwestern
	4	+
	5	+Press, Joshua J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2008; B.A., Emory University, 2004., "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
	6	+
	7	+But despite these… the First¶ Amendment
	8	+
	9	+This advocacy is mutually exclusive with the affirmative’s refusal of all restrictions because it creates a space for the university to limit what students would normally have free range to say. Even if it wasn’t, there are several disadvantages to doing the affirmative that make our advocacy preferable by itself.
	10	+
	11	+Dorms and residence halls are hot spots for harassment that students can’t escape. Press 08
	12	+Press, Joshua, "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
	13	+
	14	+When considering the… court in U WM.”
	15	+
	16	+Students should certainly be exposed to new ideas and ways of seeing the world. But, they also need somewhere safe to retreat.
	17	+Press, Joshua, "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
	18	+
	19	+This approach also … their student bodies.
	20	+
	21	+And, the our advocacy is will not get overturned and can withstand scrutiny. We tie anti-discrimination laws to speech codes in dorms. Press 08
	22	+Press, Joshua, "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
	23	+
	24	+Yet the arguments… be unconstitutionally chilled."'
	25	+
	26	+Hate speech has to be limited in the dorms. This type of speech does real violence that makes college unbearable. Delgado and Stefacic ‘09
	27	+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
	28	+
	29	+II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO:… of free expression.111
	30	+
	31	+This destroys the effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas and makes deliberation and conversation impossible. Post ‘91
	32	+ROBERT C. POST - Professor of Law, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California at Berkeley. B.A., Harvard College, 1969; J.D., Yale University, 1977; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1980. “RACIST SPEECH, DEMOCRACY, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.” William and Mary Law Review. 1991. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1924andcontext=wmlr JJN
	33	+
	34	+D. Harm to the… stigmatizing victim groups.
	35	+
	36	+My opponent case relies on promoting speech for everyone. But, that is an ineffective starting point to promote quality of life and rights of people on campus. Instead, we need some regulation on the marketplace of ideas. Before addressing the specifics of their case we will isolate a few problems with their thesis.
	37	+
	38	+First, unrestricted speech creates a chilling effect where people are terrified to speak out. This has the effect of creating less dialogue. Inbger 84
	39	+Stanley Ingber, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: A LEGITIMIZING MYTH, Duke Law Review, February 1984 EE
	40	+
	41	+The clear and… to established norms
	42	+
	43	+Second, don’t listen to their arguments about a ban getting misapplied. Tons of European countries already ban hate speech. There’s no spillover effect. Muravchik 10
	44	+https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/710f0f022e1745ed1e1924fb278aa379.pdf
	45	+EE
	46	+
	47	+Moreover, a wealth… very little thinking.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-18 05:16:29.182

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ghada Shehab

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Brentwood HG

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Dorms PIC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Golden Desert