Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[32]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[32]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,55 +1,0 @@
1		-College speech regulations on the rise and it’s a slippery slope – threatens journalism, academic freedom, and student expression. Plan key to checking widespread censorship.
2		-Sanders, Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017. WC
3		-*Edited for ableist language
4		-Post-Hazelwood censorship disputes have not been limited to high schools; a number of colleges and universities have gotten in on the action as well. In 2003, the acting president of Hampton University in Virginia seized the entire press run of the student newspaper, Hampton Script, after it printed her letter responding to a story about a school cafeteria’s healthcode violations on page three, rather than on the front page as she requested.106 An Indiana university last year briefly instituted a policy to require students to get approval from the school’s marketing department before speaking with reporters.107 In Alabama, an art student sued in late 2005 after university officials removed his artwork, which included nudity, from an on-campus exhibit that cautioned visitors before they entered that some of the works might contain nudity.108 And a growing number of higher education institutions have begun to test the First Amendment’s boundaries by establishing “free speech zones” that limit the on-campus locations where citizens can express their grievances109 and by instituting (frequently overbroad) “speech codes” in an attempt to combat racial and sexual harassment.110 In today’s atmosphere of increasing collegiate regulation of student speech, the application of the Hazelwood test to universities could unintentionally cripple devastate college journalism. Because most colleges’ student publications receive some form of financial assistance from the university—either directly through student fee allocations or indirectly through the provision of free or low-cost office space or equipment—the Hazelwood framework established for school-sponsored student expression potentially could apply to the vast majority of college publications.111 Such an outcome would leave student newspaper or yearbook editors in a difficult position: Do they play nice and allow administrators to exercise prior review, which could convert their publications into little more than propaganda-laden puff pieces, or do they stick to their ethical guns and risk funding cuts or worse? Under Hazelwood, college editors would be forced to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when faced with a column that expresses an unpopular opinion or a story that could make their school look bad. Inevitably, like many of their high school counterparts, some might decide to forego the hassle.112 The fallout from Hazelwood’s application to colleges would not be limited to newspapers and yearbooks.113 Other forms of student expression, such as a student group’s choice of speaker or performance artist, could be subject to administrative veto. Newly created publications would be especially vulnerable, as they would likely have a more difficult time demonstrating their status as a public forum than established publications. Even professors could wake up one day to discover that the academic freedom they have cherished for so long is now nothing more than “a professional courtesy that college administrators may lawfully disregard on pedagogical grounds.”114 If Hazelwood arrives on college campuses, it is difficult to see a stopping point for the wreckage it could leave in its wake.
5		-We’re at the breaking point – censorship of journalism risks normalizing it in the real world.
6		-Schuman 12-8 (Rebecca, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html)
7		-Well, here’s some great news to cheer you up: The American student press is under siege! Apparently, we’ve been too busy blowing gaskets over professor watch lists and “safe spaces” to recognize the actual biggest threat to free speech on college campuses today. According to a new report by the American Association of University Professors, in conjunction with three other nonpartisan free-speech advocacy organizations, a disquieting trend of administrative censorship of student-run media has been spreading quietly across the country—quietly, of course, because according to the report, those censorship efforts have so far been successful. The report finds that recent headlines out of Mount St. Mary’s University, for example, may be “just the tip of a much larger iceberg.” Indeed, “it has become disturbingly routine for student journalists and their advisers to experience overt hostility that threatens their ability to inform the campus community and, in some instances, imperils their careers or the survival of their publications.” The report chronicles more than 20 previously unreported cases of media advisers “suffering some degree of administrative pressure to control, edit, or censor student journalistic content.” Furthermore, this pressure came “from every segment of higher education and from every institutional type: public and private, four-year and two-year, religious and secular.” It gets worse. In many of the cases in the report, administration officials “threatened retaliation against students and advisers not only for coverage critical of the administration but also for otherwise frivolous coverage that the administrators believed placed the institution in an unflattering light,” including an innocuous listicle of the best places to hook up on campus. In many cases, the student publications were subject to prior review from either an adviser who reported directly to the administration or the administration itself. Prior review means getting what’s in your newspaper signed off on by someone up top before it can be published. It is—to use the parlance of my years of professional journalistic training that began with my time as features editor of the Vassar College Miscellany News in the mid-’90s—absolute bullshit. (At public universities, it’s also illegal.) First, and most obviously, this is because a free student press is a hallmark of the American higher education system, and any threat to that freedom is on its face worrying. But there’s also this: The last thing we need right now, in the creeping shadow of American authoritarianism, is an entire generation of fledgling journalists who’ve come up thinking censorship is acceptable.
8		-It’s all or nothing – regulations inevitably spread and threaten freedoms in the real world – history proves.
9		-Sanders 2 (Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017.) WC
10		-*Brackets for clarity.
11		-Because Hazelwood, intentionally or otherwise, greatly expanded secondary school officials’ powers to censor student speech on a host of topics, college effectively provides many young people with their first taste of largely unfettered free speech rights. If Hazelwood follows students to universities, however, their introduction to a fully functioning free press could be delayed for years longer. This result it would be disastrous for the journalism profession, which soon would find its ranks filled with freshly minted journalism school graduates inadequately prepared to pursue controversial stories aggressively and to endure the backlash therefrom. It also likely would exacerbate what appears to be a disturbing trend in American society: the existence of a sizable plurality of citizens who do not understand the importance of free speech rights. A 2004 University of Connecticut survey of more than 112,000 high school students found that 32 of them high school students think the press has “too much freedom” and that 36 believe newspapers should clear their reporting with the government before publication.116 Meanwhile, the 2005 State of the First Amendment survey discovered that those beliefs often do not change much once citizens reach the age of maturity; 23 of the survey’s adult respondents said the First Amendment “goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” down from almost 50 in 2002 (shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks).117 The extension of Hazelwood to colleges could lead an even larger number of Americans, during some of their most formative years, to become more accepting of official limitations on the content of their speech.118 That, in turn, could pave a dangerous path toward vastly expanded federal and state speech regulation and a society in which “free” speech is nothing more than a distant memory from an earlier time.
12		-This is a disad to all PIC’s – minor restrictions inevitably spread.
13		-Plan
14		-In the United States, public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
15		-Advantage 1 – Journalism
16		-College is a training ground for journalists – plan key to a responsible media.
17		-Sanders 3 (Chris. "CENSORSHIP 101: ANTI-HAZELWOOD LAWS AND THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES." University of Alabama Law School, 2006, www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/ sanders.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017.) WC
18		-Because Hazelwood, intentionally or otherwise, greatly expanded secondary school officials’ powers to censor student speech on a host of topics, college effectively provides many young people with their first taste of largely unfettered free speech rights. If Hazelwood follows students to universities, however, their introduction to a fully functioning free press could be delayed for years longer. This result it would be disastrous for the journalism profession, which soon would find its ranks filled with freshly minted journalism school graduates inadequately prepared to pursue controversial stories aggressively and to endure the backlash therefrom. It also likely would exacerbate what appears to be a disturbing trend in American society: the existence of a sizable plurality of citizens who do not understand the importance of free speech rights. A 2004 University of Connecticut survey of more than 112,000 high school students found that 32 of them think the press has “too much freedom” and that 36 believe newspapers should clear their reporting with the government before publication.116 Meanwhile, the 2005 State of the First Amendment survey discovered that those beliefs often do not change much once citizens reach the age of maturity; 23 of the survey’s adult respondents said the First Amendment “goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” down from almost 50 in 2002 (shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks).117 The extension of Hazelwood to colleges could lead an even larger number of Americans, during some of their most formative years, to become more accepting of official limitations on the content of their speech.118 That, in turn, could pave a dangerous path toward vastly expanded federal and state speech regulation and a society in which “free” speech is nothing more than a distant memory from an earlier time.
19		-Irresponsible media is the internal link to a host of impacts – Trump rise proves.
20		-Boyle, Ev. USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy, 2016, communicationleadership.usc.edu/news/ yes-the-media-bears-some-responsibility-for-the-rise-of-donald-trumpE2808A-E2 808Aheres-proof/. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017. Ev Boyle is the Associate Director of CCLP and the founding director of Civic Tech USC. WC "Yes, the media bears some responsibility for the rise of Donald Trump—here’s proof."
21		-Since announcing his presidential run last June, Donald Trump has made front page news almost every day. Even the most casual political observer can detect Trump’s enormous media advantage over his rivals. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that Trump has earned close to $2 billion in free media across all platforms including television, print, online and social media — 2.5 times more than the $746 million earned by Hillary Clinton, and nearly as much as the 16 other candidates put together. When the New York Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan recently responded to a reader’s complaint about how the Times’ homepage was devoted almost exclusively to Trump, it got me thinking: Just how much coverage are the top online news outlets devoting to Trump? And what publications are doing the best (and worst) job of balancing their presidential coverage? Two weeks ago, our small team at the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy set out to answer those questions. We spent an hour a day for 7 days (usually between 10am–12pm PDT) taking screenshots and counting mentions of Trump and all the other candidates on the homepages of 14 major news websites including the New York Times, CNN, Buzzfeed, and Fox News.1 Here are a few things we found that surprised us: 1. Trump has received significantly more homepage coverage than all of the other candidates combined — During the 7 days in our sample, Trump’s name appeared in homepage headlines 1341 times. The next most covered candidate was Hillary Clinton with 361 mentions. Trump isn’t only outpacing his closest competitor by nearly 4 to 1 — his name appeared more often on major news websites than all other candidates combined (1341 for Trump, 1047 for everyone else). 2. The Washington Post’s coverage was the most skewed in favor of Trump — and the New York Times’ was the most balanced — Looking strictly at the volume of mentions, not content, nearly 70 of Washington Post homepage mentions of presidential candidates were for Trump. The remaining five candidates together accounted for only 30 of mentions. If you believe the “all-press-is-good-press” philosophy that Trump ascribes to, volume is what matters. Ironically, Trump’s strategy for dominating the news cycle was the focus of a Washington Post column by Callum Borcher earlier this month, “Donald Trump is Laughing at the Media,” and another WaPo column by Eugene Robinson earlier this week, “No, the Media Didn’t Create Trump.” While both Borcher and Robinson correctly argue that Trump is a master of manipulating the media, neither explains why The Washington Post would focus 70 of its homepage election coverage on Trump, while the New York Times would devote just 40. Online news publications are making editorial decisions about how much to cover Trump, and how prominent that coverage should be. Given the wide variety of approaches across publications, these decisions can not be written off as “Trump made us do it.” The Washington Post’s homepage on Tuesday, March 15, when nearly every featured news story and all 6 opinion pieces focused on Trump. If you zoom in on just the Post’s homepage during our sampling period, the imbalance in coverage is staggering. Trump’s name appeared on the homepage 112 times across these 7 days, while Hillary Clinton’s name only appeared 13 times. That’s almost 10 times more mentions of Trump than any other single candidate.
22		-Trump is the tip of the iceberg – free, effective media key to checking the rise of even more dangerous demagogues.
23		-Chotiner, Isaac. "Trump Is Unhinged. But A Better, Cooler, More Polished Demagogue Could Rise In His Wake.". Slate Magazine. July 22, 2016. Isaac Chotiner is the Executive Editor of The New Republic, LLC, an assistant editor and reporter-researcher at Bloomberg, and a contributor at Slate and the Washington Post. He has a degree in political science from UC Davis. WC
24		-The fact that we all knew it was coming didn’t make it any less grotesque. The takeover of the Republican Party by a dangerous demagogue and his disgracefully supportive family has been discussed and chewed over ad nauseam. But the particular nature of Donald Trump’s convention speech, with its almost comically overstated (and utterly distorted) fearmongering, was particularly alarming for people who care about quaint notions like democracy and liberty. And yet, the speech also displayed for viewers the reasons that Trump is unlikely to win in November. But For all the talk of his political jujitsu, he Trump doesn’t have the skill or self-control of a truly adept autocrat. Trump’s speech left no doubt that he is an uninhibited authoritarian who would wreak havoc on the country and the world if elected. When the text of Trump’s speech leaked Thursday afternoon, pundits focused, correctly, on how dark it was, and how terrifying a picture it painted of present-day America. And, indeed, the written speech was gloomy and apocalyptic. But it was nothing compared to the speech as delivered by a red-faced, angry madman. Taking a page from Rudy Giuliani’s playbook, Trump yelled out some of his lines, scowled with abandon, and relished only in the doom and gloom he was selling. Trump’s plan for the country became clearer Thursday night: He is painting the United States as a country essentially on the verge of a breakdown, and thus a country that needs to take extraordinary measures to be rescued. Hence the focus on crime, terrorism, and social decay; hence the misleading statistics and dark warnings about the future. The goal is to win the election, but it is also to set up a narrative about the country Trump would be taking over. A state of emergency calls for extraordinary measures. The problem for Trump, and the saving grace for the world, is that he isn’t quite good enough to sell his message. The address was horrifyingly bleak and scary; it was also much too long, much too dark, and much too unfocused. Trump’s shouting was jarringly out of sync with other passages of the speech; his utter lack of policy specifics will be noticed even by people who do not write about policy for a living; and his tone prevented the ostensibly lighter passages from registering. The speech—which ran until well past 11 p.m. on the East Coast—is not the last thing you want to watch before bed. It had such strong fascist undertones, and so many foreboding passages, that it kept reminding me of Ridley Scott's famous “1984” ad for Apple. This inability to temper himself, intimately connected to his inability to control his temper, is what has hamstrung Trump all along. Trump couldn’t just make a strong case about stopping immigration. No, he had to call Mexicans rapists and question the impartiality of an American judge. He couldn’t just speak out against ISIS. No, he also had to call for a total ban on Muslims coming to the United States. Although Trump generally stuck to the text of this speech, and didn’t go off-script as some of his advisers and anxious Republicans surely feared, he still turned in a typically loony Trumpian performance, because that’s him. There is nothing else. If there were, Hillary Clinton would be in trouble. And that’s the really scary thing. It’s worth considering what Trump has unleashed, not just in terms of nativism and bigotry, but in proving that white nationalism has a real base. The fear, then, isn’t just that Trump could win, which he could, despite his low odds. The fear is that a better, cooler, more polished version of Trump could rise in his wake. That is a prospect, and a danger, that will not disappear no matter what happens in November. An aggressive free press is the only check on the abuse of power.
25		-Failure to check demagoguery guarantees environmental apocalypse and extinction.
26		-Haraldsson, Hrafnkell, and Noam Chomsky. "Noam Chomsky Says GOP is the ‘Most Dangerous Organization in World History’." Politicus, 15 Nov. 2016, www.politicususa.com/2016/11/15/ noam-chomsky-gop-most-dangerous-organization-world-history.html. Accessed 24 Jan. 2017. WC
27		-In an interview with EcoWatch, Noam Chomsky noted that “On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.” Surely this is hyperbole, many will say. Chomsky admits “The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it?” “The facts,” he says, “suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to the destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.” He asks people to “consider what we have just been witnessing.” Think about it: awful as Hitler and the Nazi Party were, the German leader did not have the power to destroy all human life even had he wished. Nuclear weapons aside, the Donald Trump and the GOP does. Because, as Chomsky says, the second important event to take place on November 8 was a WMO report that stated that the last five years have been the hottest on record (we have since seen 2016 is on track to be the new hottest year). He points to what passes for “sensible moderates” like Jeb Bush “who said it’s all uncertain, but we don’t have to do anything because we’re producing more natural gas” (figure that one out if you can) and John Kasich who acknowledged global warming but whose reaction was “we are going to burn coal in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it.” Chomsky goes on to say, “The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible.” So we may be watching the EPA go the way of the dinosaurs with Trump appointing a climate change denier to run his EPA transition team. His energy adviser is an oil executive, and you know where all those regulations – the ones that are keeping the fossil fuel industry in check – are going to go. “The effects of Republican denialism had already been felt,” says Chomsky. COP21 will not “lead to a verifiable treaty” even as “tens of millions are expected to have to flee from low-lying plains” from rising sea levels in Bangladesh, just one country among many threatened by rising seas. Trump says no to immigrants. Bangladesh points out that the sea level rise is a product of pollution coming from the United States and other industrialized countries. “Bangladesh’s leading climate scientist” points out that, in justice, “These migrants should have the right to move to the countries from which all these greenhouse gasses are coming. Millions should be able to go to the United States.” And Trump is quibbling over a few thousand Syrian refugees. Who, it might be added, are also fleeing an area heavily impacted by Global Warming. There won’t be much we can do about it for the next four years, as the GOP races the human species toward world-wide catastrophe and extinction. Sarah Palin will get her wish to “drill baby, drill” while those of us who protest these policies will be called anarchists and worse. Meanwhile, the GOP has managed to divert anger from their corporate masters to the government instead, and Chomsky points out what I have pointed out many times here, that “With all its flaws, the government is, to some extent, under popular influence and control, unlike the corporate sector.” A defiant Bernie Sanders tweeted an answer from all sane Americans: “Sorry, Mr. Trump. The future of the planet is more important than the short-term profits of the oil, coal and gas industries.” This is nonsense to Republicans, who, if they reject science, are not about to accept its consequences.
28		-Advantage 2 – Psychoanalysis
29		-Discrimination is inevitable – speech restrictions just force people to bottle up their feelings– drives hate under ground and re-entrenches prejudice.
30		-Leonard 93 (Leonard, James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782.. Jul 9 19:54:18 2016. Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University. Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org).DA=7/9/16.) WC
31		- Perhaps the most insidious effect of thought restrictions is the removal of offensive thought from public view. I know of no one who argues that speech codes alone will eliminate discriminatory feelings or achieve a condition of equality and harmony on campus. In fact, it is likely that speech restrictions alone will only alter the choice of words or the forum for discussion. The most blatantly offensive words will disappear; but in their place will come more subtle forms of discourse and newer modes of expression. The most hateful expressions will be driven underground where they will exist undetected. Surely the values of equality and harmony will be better served when offensive thoughts are exposed to the public and their speakers are forced to answer to public criticism and disapproval.4 And surely the ugliness of a thought is a reason to expose it rather than hide it.
32		-This link turns your K’s and DA’s – speech is the only alternative to real world violence.
33		-Schwartz 86
34		-Schwartz, Joel. “Freud and Freedom of Speech.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 80, no. 4, 1986, pp. 1227–1248. www.jstor.org/stable/ 1960865. WC
35		-In this essay I develop a psychoanalytic defense of freedom speech that is implicit in Freud's works, principally in his discussions of verbal slip jokes. Freud argues that freedom of speech benefits people by providing a harmless outlet for aggression, suggesting that it is better to express aggression in words than in violent deeds or to repress it altogether. The psychoanalytic defense of free speech has affinities with various liberal defenses, but it is partial because apolitical; it emphasizes the emotional self-expression of speakers as opposed to the rational persuasion of listen- ers. The intellectual roots of the contemporary concern with "freedom of expression" (as opposed to "freedom of speech") can be found in Freud: to focus on freedom of expres- sion is to ignore the qualitative differences among forms of self-expression and to neglect the specifically political character of speech. … Language serves as a substitute for action; by its help, an affect can be abreacted i.e., a disturbing emotion can be discharged almost as effectively as it can by an action. Developing this point in the second statement, Breur adds that “telling this is a relief”. The most adequate reaction by which heightened emotion can be lessened is always a deed. As an English writer has wittily remarked, the man person who first flung a word of abuse at an enemy instead of a spear was the founder of civilization. Thus the word is the substitute for the deed, and in some circumstances the only substitute. Accordingly, alongside the adequate reaction there is one that is less adequate.
36		-Contention 2 – Solvency
37		-Regulations are impossible to enforce and just re-entrench prejudice – link turns your K’s and DA’s.
38		-Jacobson 16 (Daniel, prof of philosophy @ Michigan, Freedom of Speech under Assault on Campus, CATO POLICY ANALYSIS NO. 796, 8-30-16)
39		-Yet, many academics—including leading constitutional law scholars—consider this standard more sophisticated than what they decry as American exceptionalism. “In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril,” Frederick Schauer, a First Amendment scholar at Harvard Law School, writes approvingly, “and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment.”13 Even a ban on racial epithets faces the same problem: that there is no principle for what counts as a slur and no prospect for consistency of application. Worse yet, the proposal that it be illegal to urge discrimination empowers the politically powerful to censor dissent by declaring opinions to be discriminatory. Does it count as urging discrimination to publish polls on the percentages of Muslims in various countries who agree with various less-than-peaceful, even extremist, ideas? If we accepted the proposals of Schauer and others, that question would be answered at our legal peril. Clearly, those are not the conditions under which we can conduct an honest discussion of the claim that Islam is a religion of peace.
40		-Resentment of speech codes kills their solvency.
41		-Leonard 2 (James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782. WC *Brackets for clarity)
42		-In fact, the effect of the speech codes will probably be negative. The one certain reaction to thought codes is resentment. We should not be surprised when students and others react to the yoke of censorship with contempt and derision. As a general matter, people reject paternalistic attempts to control their thoughts and to order their relationships with others. Speech codes communicate an unstated assumption that students cannot be trusted to interact with members of other groups without the benevolent guidance of the campus authorities. Nor should we deceive ourselves by thinking that the backlash will be confined to the archetypal "white male" student. Surely the black law student at Michigan who called a classmate "white trash" must have felt immeasurable resentment at having to write a humiliating letter of apology. 79 It is doubtful that a sense of equality will emerge from an atmosphere of resentment against university paternalism.
43		-Speech codes cause racialized violence.
44		-Leonard 3 (James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782. WC *Brackets for clarity)
45		-In the long term, resentment over thought control will probably harden into a cynical view of a university organized along group lines. Speech codes invariably turn on racial or other group classifications. They serve as a constant reminder not only of differences among students, but also of the university's acceptance of demography as a proper basis for organizing academic society. Even the least perceptive student understands that the university's concern with protecting the educational environment of an individual student extends only to discouraging embarrassing incidents of bigotry. Speech codes offer no protection to those who are subjected to personal abuse short of prejudicial behavior. It is a short step from this observation, at least from the perspective of a young college student, to the conclusion that one's rights depend in part on group affiliation. This reasoning, of course, lacks a mature perspective of the nature and history of group relations in our society, the need for incorporating all persons into the mainstream, and simply the intellectual and personal pleasure of knowing others unlike ourselves. Still we should not be surprised at the prevalence of this attitude.
46		-Restricting speech just glorifies it and turns bigots into martyrs – empirics prove.
47		-Leonard 4 (James. "Killing with Kindness: Speech Codes in the American University." Ohio Northern University Law Review 19 (1993): 759-782. WC *Brackets for clarity)
48		-A strategy of achieving conditions of equality on campus that emphasizes differences over shared values is hardly promising and probably doomed. As well as the possibility of backlash, there is a great risk that speech codes will have the ironic effect of publicizing and glorifying the very ideas which the censors would abolish. Professor Nadine Strossen has argued cogently that attempts at suppressing racist speech (and by implication other forms of discriminatory expression) generate publicity and attention that the speaker would never have attracted on his or her own.80 There is some psychological evidence that attempts by government to censor speech makes it more appealing to many,' and may even transform censored speakers into martyrs.
49		-Hold CP’s to a high threshold – every card in this contention is a sufficient disad to turn their solvency.
50		-Counter-speech best solves hate – empirics.
51		-Davis, Alexander. "The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study on Pushing the Boundaries of the Freedom of Speech." Digital Commons, June 2016, digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1119andcontext=joursp. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017. WC
52		-All experts agreed that negative speech creates awareness that surrounds a certain topic. They all noted that "good speech" surfaces to combat the "bad speech." Humphrey notes that, "We have seen a lot of students stand up and say that this isn't welcome in this community. It galvanized a movement that said we need to do better" (Appendix A). Den Otter notes something very similar, stating that, "I think any time that there's some kind of racist incident on campus, people start talking about it. They're made more aware of it" (Appendix B). And Loving advocates for people to not just stand idly while hate speech is taking place around them, that, "If racial slurs were met with more conversation, evil councils being remedied by good councils, then how long would that atmosphere remain on campus?" (Appendix C). The research shows that these suggestions and statements are true, if history is used as an indicator. Various incidents that have occurred, such as the California Polytechnic State University College Republicans Free Speech Wall, the Crops House Incident and the Charlie Hebdo Attacks have created movements against the negative speech that took place. Many times when "bad speech" shows its face, there are people who use "good speech" to combat the issue.
53		-Speech codes are only used to suppress minority students – history proves.
54		-Strossen, Nadine, Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?, 1990 Duke Law Journal 484-573 (1990) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol39/iss3/3
55		-The first reason that laws censoring racist speech may undermine the goal of combating racism flows from the discretion such laws inevitably vest in prosecutors, judges, and the other individuals who implement them. One ironic, even tragic, result of this discretion is that members of minority groups themselves-the very people whom the law is intended to protect-are likely targets of punishment. For example, among the first individuals prosecuted under the British Race Relations Act of were black power leaders. 368 Their overtly racist messages undoubtedly expressed legitimate anger at real discrimination, yet the statute drew no such fine lines, nor could any similar statute possibly do so. Rather than curbing speech offensive to minorities, this British law instead has been regularly used to curb the speech of blacks, trade unionists, and anti-nuclear activists.369 In perhaps the ultimate irony, this statute, which was intended to restrain the neo-Nazi National Front, instead has barred expression by the Anti-Nazi League.370 The British experience is not unique. History teaches us that antihate speech laws regularly have been used to oppress racial and other minorities. For example, none of the anti-Semites who were responsible for arousing France against Captain Alfred Dreyfus were ever prosecuted for group libel. But Emile Zola was prosecuted for libeling the French clergy and military in his "J'Accuse," and he had to flee to England to escape punishment.371 Additionally, closer to home, the very doctrines that Professor Lawrence invokes to justify regulating campus hate speech-for example, the fighting words doctrine, upon which he chiefly relies-are particularly threatening to the speech of racial and political minorities. 372 The general lesson that rules banning hate speech will be used to punish minority group members has proven true in the specific context of campus hate speech regulations. In 1974, in a move aimed at the National Front, the British National Union of Students (NUS) adopted a resolution that representatives of "openly racist and fascist organizations" were to be prevented from speaking on college campuses "by whatever means necessary (including disruption of the meeting)." 373 A substantial motivation for the rule had been to stem an increase in campus anti-Semitism. Ironically, however, following the United Nations' cue,3 74 some British students deemed Zionism a form of racism beyond the bounds of permitted discussion. Accordingly, in 1975 British students invoked the NUS resolution to disrupt speeches by Israelis and Zionists, including the Israeli ambassador to England. The intended target of the NUS resolution, the National Front, applauded this result. However, the NUS itself became disenchanted by this and other unintended consequences of its resolution and repealed it in 1977.375 The British experience under its campus anti-hate speech rule parallels the experience in the United States under the one such rule that has led to a judicial decision. During the approximately one year that the University of Michigan rule was in effect, there were more than twenty cases of whites charging blacks with racist speech. 376 More importantly, the only two instances in which the rule was invoked to sanction racist speech (as opposed to sexist and other forms of hate speech) involved the punishment of speech by or on behalf of black students. 377 Additionally, the only student who was subjected to a full-fledged disciplinary hearing was a black student accused of homophobic and sexist expression.3 78 In seeking clemency from the sanctions imposed following this hearing, the student asserted he had been singled out because of his race and his political views.379 Others who were punished for hate speech under the Michigan rule included several Jewish students accused of engaging in anti-Semitic expression 380 and an Asian-American student accused of making an anti-black comment.38' Likewise, the student who recently brought a lawsuit challenging the University of Connecticut's hate speech policy, under which she had been penalized for an allegedly homophobic remark, was Asian-American. 38 2 She claimed that, among the other students who had engaged in similar expression, she had been singled out for punishment because of her ethnic background.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-02-04 22:12:43.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Kris Kaya

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Carmel Valley CC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-29

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Logan Carter Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-JanFeb - Generic AC

Tournament

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