Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-16 20:16:06.937
	1	+2016-12-16 20:16:06.0

Caselist.CitesClass[22]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,35 @@
	1	+The 1AC’s "free speech" narrative naturalizes state apparatuses of control—that makes biopower and fascism inevitable—also independently turns case
	2	+
	3	+Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on dthe website. "Not just free speech, but freedom itself." A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps.
	4	+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW
	5	+If defending free speech has come to mean sponsoring wealthy right-wing politicians and enabling fascist recruiting, perhaps it is time for anarchists to reassess this principle. The discourse of free speech in democracy presumes that no significant imbalances of power exist, and that the primary mechanism of change is rational discussion. In fact, a capitalist elite controls most resources, and power crystallizes upward along multiple axes of oppression. Against this configuration, it takes a lot more than speech alone to open the possibility of social change. There can be no truly free speech except among equal—among parties who are not just equal before the law, but who have comparable access to resources and equal say in the world they share. Can an employee really be said to be as free to express herself as her boss, if the latter can take away her livelihood? Are two people equally free to express their views when one owns a news network and the other cannot even afford to photocopy fliers? "Despite the radical roots of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union that advocate for state protection of free expression, this form of civil liberties empties the defense of free speech of any radical content, implying that only the state can properly guarantee our ability to express ourselves freely and thus reinforcing the power of the state above the right to free speech itself." Across the years, anarchists have defended freedom of speech. This is important in principle: in an anarchist vision of society, neither the state or any other entity should be able to determine what we can and cannot say. It’s also important in practice: as a revolutionary minority frequently targeted for repression, we’ve consistently had our speeches, newspapers, websites, and marches attacked.~~But~~ Extreme right and fascist organizations have jumped onto the free speech bandwagon as well. In the US, Anti-Racist Action and similar groups have been largely effective in disrupting their events and organizing efforts. Consequently, fascists now increasingly rely on the state to protect them, claiming that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay organizing constitutes a form of legally protected speech—and within the framework of the ACLU, it does. Fascist groups that are prevented from publishing their material in most other industrialized democracies by laws restricting hate speech frequently publish it in the United States, where no such laws exist, and distribute it worldwide from here. So in practice, state protection of the right to free expression aids fascist organizing.
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+Their view of rights is too abstract—speech is never truly free in a world controlled by the flow of capital; the affirmative’s focus on individual liberties simply re-entrenches dominant power structures
	9	+
	10	+Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on the website. "Not just free speech, but freedom itself." A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps.
	11	+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW
	12	+
	13	+In the US, where donations to political candidates legally constitute speech, the more money you have, the more "free speech" you can exercise. As the slogan goes, freedom isn’t free—and nowhere is that clearer than with speech. Contrary to the propaganda of democracy, ideas alone have no intrinsic force. Our capacity to act on our beliefs, not just to express them, determines how much power we have. In this sense, the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor is strikingly apt: you need capital to participate, and the more you have, the greater your ability to enact the ideas you buy into. Just as the success of a few entrepreneurs and superstars is held up as proof that the free market rewards hard work and ingenuity, the myth of the marketplace of ideas suggests that the capitalist system persists because everyone—billionaire and bellboy alike—agrees it is the best idea.
	14	+
	15	+
	16	+That trades off with revolutionary politics—the state justifies a right to "say anything, so long as you don’t do anything"
	17	+
	18	+Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on the website. "Not just free speech, but freedom itself." A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps.
	19	+ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW
	20	+
	21	+But what if, despite the skewed playing field, someone manages to say something that threatens to destabilize the power structure? If history is any indication, it swiftly turns out that freedom of expression is not such a sacrosanct right after all. In practice, we are permitted free speech only insofar as expressing our views changes nothing. The premise that speech alone cannot be harmful implies that speech is precisely that which is ineffectual: therefore anything effectual is not included among one’s rights. During World War I, the Espionage Act criminalized any attempt to "cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, ~~or~~ refusal of duty" or to obstruct recruiting for the armed forces. President Woodrow Wilson urged the bill’s passage because he believed antiwar activity could undermine the US war effort. Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman were arrested under this law for printing anarchist literature that opposed the war. Likewise, the Anarchist Exclusion Act and the subsequent Immigration Act were used to deport or deny entry to any immigrant "who disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organized government." Berkman, Goldman, and hundreds of other anarchists were deported under these acts. There are countless other examples showing that when speech can threaten the foundation of state power, even the most democratic government doesn’t hesitate to suppress it. Thus, when the state presents itself as the defender of free speech, we can be sure that this is because our rulers believe that allowing criticism will strengthen their position more than suppressing it could. Liberal philosopher and ACLU member Thomas Emerson saw that freedom of speech "can act as a kind of ‘safety valve’ to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution." Therein lies the true purpose of the right to free speech in the US.
	22	+
	23	+====That’s also terminal defense to the aff—allowing free speech means people will never actually resist structures of neoliberalism====
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====Their use of the state is also biopolitical—biopower is functionally colonialist and perpetuates capitalist exploitation as well====
	27	+Brennan 14
	28	+Philip Khaled Brennan (researcher on human rights and biopower from the UK). "PREVENT: An Exercise in Biopower—Section One." The Cat House. April 6^^th^^, 2014. http://cathouse.hivetimes.org.uk/2014/04/06/prevent-an-exercise-in-biopower-section-one/
	29	+The Nature of the Modern Nation-State All modern nation states operate in the biopower mode, without exception. Whether they are former colonial states or states created through colonial conquest, the biopolitical is at the heart of how all modern states operate. This is directly attributable to the colonial era, as it was through this period of world conquest by western powers that biopower as a tool of governance was refined and perfected in the colonies before being brought back and used at home as a kind of colonisation of the lower orders of the home population. This is the classic Foucauldian Boomerang Effect: "It should never be forgotten that while colonization, with its techniques and its political and juridical weapons, obviously transported European models to other continents, it also had a considerable boomerang effect on the mechanisms of power in the West, and on the apparatuses, institutions, and techniques of power. A whole series of colonial models was brought back to the West, and the result was that the West could practice something resembling colonization, or an internal colonialism, on itself."1 Despite biopower’s use in the colonial context, its first instance was in the regulation of life at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The state had to reduce mortality in the subaltern population in order that they would better service the needs of capital. The fields of public hygiene, medicine, social engineering, and so forth, were enacted upon populations in the West to reduce mortality and morbidity, and to make them more effective as workers and wealth generators. The longer life expectancies of workers, and their reduction in diseases and injuries which either debilitated or killed them outright, increase the amount of capital they could generate for the state and the capitalist class. This is the primary reason why child labour was gradually phased out in the 19th century: the mortality and morbidity rats of child labourers threatened the continual supply of adult labour. This meant that biopower, twinned with the state operating under raison d’etat, insinuated itself within all levels of disciplinary institutions and power, and over the course of two hundred years led to the creation of the self-policing state. Where the discipline of the individual ends and the discipline of the population begins is hard to define, but it suffices to note that man-as-species as opposed to man-as-individual became a major theme in disciplinary power from around the beginning of the 18th century and beyond.
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+
	33	+The alternative and Role of the Ballot is to reject the instantiation of biopower within educational spaces—that’s a prerequisite to literally everything else—biopower skews our ability to make normative decisions and each rejection is key
	34	+Wittman 6: John Wittman, Spring 2006. Composition Forum. Biopower and Pedagogy: Local Spaces and Institutional Technologieshttp://compositionforum.com/issue/15/wittmanbiopower.php. RW
	35	+ Biopower, as defined by Francois Ewald, is "the industrial and controlled production and reproduction of the living" (8). It is the word Foucault uses to characterize changes in the practice and regulation of life beginning in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This was largely a result of industrialization, which forced a change in sovereign power—absolute power retreated and regulatory and disciplinary powers substituted for it. Instead of simply having an absolute and normal right over life and death, in the classical age life transformed alongside several elements and mechanisms of power "working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize" the social body (History 136). According to Foucault this shift happened in two separate but consistent forms: "anatomo-politics" and "a politics of the population." The first treated the body as a functioning mechanism—"its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces," the second treated the body as a ‘species’, "imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes" (History 139). The first form was concerned with the manipulation and management, or disciplining, of humans bodies. The key of "disciplinary power was to produce a human being who could be treated as a ‘docile body’" (Dreyfus 34-35). While these technological changes and their significance went largely unnoticed as they evolved, in the nineteenth century they come together to produce a new kind of political technology—what Foucault refers to as "the great technology of power in the nineteenth century" (History 140). Governance of life and its relation to power were institutionally legitimated in new ways incorporating institutions such as family, medicine, psychiatry, education, etc. They create what Foucault calls the "welfare state." Ewald clarifies, "The welfare state accomplishes the dream of bio-power—.~~it~~ is a state whose primary aim is no longer to protect the freedom of each individual—but rather to assume responsibility for the very manner in which the individual manages his life" (8). In a discussion of education, in The Subject and Power Foucault argues that the disposal of its space, the meticulous regulations that govern its internal life, the different activities that are organized there . . . constitute a block of capacity-communication-power. Activity to ensure learning and the acquisition of aptitudes to types of behavior works via a whole ensemble of regulated communications—and by means of a whole series of power processes. (338) One critical component to the success of biopolitics is that different and sometimes competing institutions, whether they be ideological or material, operate together as a system of coercion rather than force. This is not so much a means of mind control as it is a systematic reorganization of governing technologies. These technologies do not impose regulatory principles as much as governing institutions (re)constitute new social relations that (re)create how to live. Unless this process of biopower is interrupted, people can become so entrenched in institutional logics that those logics and the institutions that support them become invisible. In other words, the threat of biopower is the increasing retreat of analytical thought to cliché forms of thinking. Disrupting the technology of biopolitics is a difficult task, but not an impossible one. Foucault suggests in acting within institutional boundaries "it is quite possible . . . to get to know how it works and to work within it . . . and . . . to carry out in that specific area work that may properly be called intellectual" ("On Power" 107). This includes learning how one is imbedded in a system to gain some perspective on how to act just beyond it. To struggle within real, material everyday circumstances is what Foucault calls the task of the "specific" intellectual, which he opposes to the "universal" intellectual. The specific intellectual must be able to suspend "as far as possible the system of values to which one refers when testing and assessing" (107). The task of the specific individual is to respond to local contingent sites of struggle in the context of the global. It is not to critique specific notions of right and wrong but to uncover how we are produced institutionally. This defrosting of institutional thought gets at the heart of Foucault. I am using the term transformative pedagogy to broadly refer to recent movements in scholarship that generated largely from the early work of Paulo Freire which argue that education is a context of social, democratic action. These would include the school of critical pedagogy of well known scholars such as Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and Michael Apple and others but also the theoretical influence of Feminism and Critical Race Theory for instance.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-16 20:16:07.348

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dean Doneen

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Peninsula JL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+9

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington Weiler Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB- K- Biopower

Tournament

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