Changes for page Marlborough Kim Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:38

From version < 39.1 >
edited by Mia Coates
on 2016/11/19 21:56
To version < 49.1 >
edited by Mia Coates
on 2017/01/12 19:07
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Glenbrooks-Round3.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +32.8 KB
Content
Caselist.CitesClass[12]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-11-19 21:56:39.336
1 +2016-11-19 21:56:39.0
Caselist.RoundClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +12,13
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Glenbrooks-Round3.docx
Caselist.CitesClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
1 +Municipal Spending DA
2 +The aff increases the number of successful lawsuits against the police. The costs of civil suits against police are paid by taxpayers.
3 +Kristian ’16 - Bonnie Kristian Writer; communications consultant for Young Americans for Liberty; graduate student at Bethel Seminary, “Seven Reasons Police Brutality Is Systemic, Not Anecdotal,” American Conservative (Web). July 2, 2014. Accessed November 1, 2016. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2014/07/02/seven-reasons-police-brutality-is-systematic-not-anecdotal/ AT
4 +4. Settlements are shifted to taxpayers.¶ Those officers who are found guilty of brutality typically find the settlement to their victims paid from city coffers. Research from Human Rights Watch reveals that in some places, taxpayers “are paying three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.” In larger cities, these settlements easily cost the public tens of millions of dollars annually while removing a substantial incentive against police misconduct.
5 +
6 +Expanding liability decimates city finances.
7 +Worral 04 - John L. Worral Assoc. Prof. of Criminal Justice, CSU San Bernardino; PhD in Political Science from Washington State U., “Chapter 10: Police Officers, Excessive Force, and Civil Liability,” Controversies in Policing. Eds Quint C. Thurman Texas State U., San Marcos and Andrew Giacomazzi Boise State U.. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing, Lexis Nexis Group. pp. 139-155 (2004) – brackets in original. AT
8 +Notwithstanding its effects on officers themselves, civil liability can take a financial toll on cities and counties. Researchers have reported an increase in both the size and number of awards given to plaintiffs who sue the police (e.g., Fabrizio, 1990; Rudovsky, 1992). For example del Carmen (1987) estimated that the cost of the average jury award of liability against the typical municipality is about $2 million. In 1982, for example, there were more than 250 cases where juries awarded at least $1 million to plaintiffs (National League of Cities, 1985). Bates, Cutler, and Clink (1981) took this figure and speculated that if current estimates of jury award figures were applied to the existing 39,000 local governments, there could be as much as $780 billion in pending litigation against police agencies. More recent studies, however, have revealed that the average reported award is $118,698 (Kappeler et al., 1993).¶ Litigation is costly not just because of settlements or jury awards, but also because of potential jumps in liability insurance premiums. In 1975, for example, before the decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) insurance premiums for Dade County, Florida increased from $60,000 to $150,000 in the space of one year (these figures would obviously be higher in today’s dollars). Monell exposed municipalities – not just police officers and supervisors – to litigation, and, consequently, many municipal governments are facing an “insurance crisis” (Hagerty, 1976). Some commentators have noted:¶ Quite clearly, absent insurance, a substantial judgment or series of judgments could monetarily cripple a municipality and force it to forgo or reduce services in vital areas. Yet insurance is unavailable to some municipalities and for many others it has become prohibitively expensive. Due to the expanding liability of local governments and concomitant disappearing legal defenses, insurers are facing greater underwriting costs and will not significantly lower municipal premiums (Vitullo and Peters, 1981:335).
9 +
10 +The push for revenue causes over policing of communities of color and mistrust of the police.
11 +Kopf, Dan. "The Fining of Black America." Priceonomics. Priceonomics, 24 June 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016. https://priceonomics.com/the-fining-of-black-america/.ZW
12 +In March 2010, years before Ferguson, Missouri, became known for sparking the Black Lives Matter movement, the city’s Finance Director contacted the Chief of Police with a solution to the city’s budget problems. ¶ The Finance Director wanted the police to generate more revenues from fines — money paid for infractions like traffic violations and missing court appointments. He warned that the city would be in financial trouble “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year.” “Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall,” he wrote, “it’s not an insignificant issue.”¶ The Finance Director’s request surfaced as part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. The investigation was instigated by the civil unrest that followed the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old African American man named Michael Brown in August 2014. Its goal was to better understand why the citizens of Ferguson felt so at odds with the police department chartered to protect them.¶ The Justice Department concluded that the mistrust between the police and the community primarily resulted from excessive fining. “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs,” the report read. The use of fines to fund the government undermined “law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.” ¶ Ferguson has a population of just over 20,000 that is 67 African American, and it raised over $2 million from fines and fees in 2012. This accounted for around 13 of all government revenue, and a disproportionate amount of this money came from the African American population.¶ Is Ferguson an anomaly?¶ Using the U.S. Census’s Survey of Local and State Finances, we investigated the proportion of revenues that cities typically receive from fines, as well as the characteristics of cities that rely on fines the most. What are these cities like? Are they rich or poor? In certain parts of the country? Heavily Black or White?¶ We found one demographic that was most characteristic of cities that levy large amounts of fines on their citizens: a large African American population. Among the fifty cities with the highest proportion of revenues from fines, the median size of the African American population—on a percentage basis—is more than five times greater than the national median.¶ Surprisingly, we found that income had very little connection to cities’ reliance on fines as a revenue source. Municipalities that are overwhelming White and non-Hispanic do not exhibit as much excessive fining, even if they are poor.¶ Our analysis indicates that the use of fines as a source of revenue is not a socioeconomic problem, but a racial one. The cities most likely to exploit residents for fine revenue are those with the most African Americans.
13 +And this controls the internal link to overpolicing because it throws more militarized police officers into communities that already disproportionately suffer from police brutality and overpolicing
14 +
15 +Community distrust of the police undermines democratic legitimacy and the effectiveness of law enforcement.
16 +NIJ 2016 - National Institute of Justice the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, “Race, Trust and Police Legitimacy,” National Institute of Justice. July 14, 2016. Accessed November 17, 2016. http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/legitimacy/pages/welcome.aspx AT
17 +The public's perceptions about the lawfulness and legitimacy of law enforcement are an important criterion for judging policing in a democratic society. Lawfulness means that police comply with constitutional, statutory and professional norms. Legitimacy is linked to the public's belief about the police and its willingness to recognize police authority.¶ Racial and ethnic minority perceptions that the police lack lawfulness and legitimacy, based largely on their interactions with the police, can lead to distrust of the police. Distrust of police has serious consequences. It undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement, and without legitimacy police lose their ability and authority to function effectively.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-11-19 21:56:39.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Cort Sylvester
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ashland
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +13
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOV DEC Municipality Spending DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Glenbrooks
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@
1 +Text: The United States Federal Government ought to mandate that all police officers wear body cameras and regulate police usage of those cameras.
2 +Body cameras are key to increase transparency, performance, and accountability of police officers.
3 +Miller, Lindsay JD. Senior Research Associate at the Police Executive Research Forum, Jessica Toliver PERF's Director of Technical Assistance, and Police Executive Research Forum. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 2014.
4 +Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras say there are many benefits associated with the devices. They note that body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance, and accountability. In addition, given that police now operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video footage of a police encounter, body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer’s perspective. Scott Greenwood of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said at the September 2013 conference: ¶ The average interaction between an officer and a citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways. The citizen may record it on his phone. If there is some conflict happening, one or more witnesses may record it. Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the interaction. So the thing that makes the most sense—if you really want accountability both for your officers and for the people they interact with—is to also have video from the officer’s perspective
5 +
6 +Empirics from California prove that the usage of body cameras significantly decreases excessive force.
7 +Friedman, Andrew Co-Executive Director for the Center for Popular Democracy, JD NYU . "Building Momentum From the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice in Policing." Building Momentum From The Ground: n. pag. Popular Democracy. The Center for Popular Democracy, Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
8 +A 2012 study evaluating the use of body-worn cameras by the Rialto police department in California over a period of 12 months suggests more than a 50 reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force. Force was twice as likely to have been used by officers who were not wearing cameras. Complaints about police officers fell 88 compared to the previous 12-month period.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-03 03:25:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nicholas Rogers
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +San Marino
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOV DEC Body Cameras CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alta
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
1 +Link
2 +Hate speech codes are becoming more prevalent on college campuses. Gould ‘01
3 +Gould, Jon B. professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society and at the Washington College of Law at American University, where he is also director of the Washington Institute for Public and International Affairs Research "The precedent that wasn't: College hate speech codes and the two faces of legal compliance." Law and Society Review (2001): 345-392. MC
4 +But such coverage aside, college hate speech codes are far from dead. As this article demonstrates, hate speech policies not only persist, but they have actually increased in number following a series of court decisions that ostensibly found many to be un- constitutional. This apparent contradiction-between judicial precedent on one hand and collegiate action on the other-may not be surprising to those who study judicial impact, or even to those who understand collegiate policymaking. But such con- certed and widespread noncompliance provides an excellent op- portunity to examine the process by which institutions respond to a change in the legal environment. Much of the literature to date has focused on the overall impact of Supreme Court case law or on the decisions of individuals or government bodies in responding to new cases. Less is known about the process of or- ganizational compliance or about the connection between indi- vidual compliance decisions and aggregate judicial impact.
5 +Impacts
6 +A. Racism
7 +Hate speech reinforces stereotypes and harms victims physically and emotionally. Weberman ‘10
8 +Weberman, Melissa Associate at Arnold and Porter, Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP and Affiliates Associates, Law clerk in court of appeals, Emory University School of Law, University of Virginia. "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine." Ohio NUL Rev. 36 (2010): 553.
9 +Hate speech harms groups that are the target of the speech. Under the tradition of group libel and the Supreme Court's decision in Beauharnais v. Illinois, speech that is likely to direct contempt or scorn on identifiable groups should be regulated to prevent injury to the status of the members of those groups. A more modern understanding of hate speech derives from the understanding of racism as "the structural subordination of a group based on an idea of racial inferiority."38 Such expression is particularly unacceptable because it locks in the oppression of already marginalized groups; it is "a mechanism of subordination, reinforcing a historical vertical relationship."3 9 Hate speech reinforces stereotypes in the public mind that subsequently guide action.40 Beyond causing harm to the target groups, hate speech causes harms to the individual.41 Racist speech, as one scholar asserted, is a form of "spiritmurder," 42 with injuries to the individual including feelings of fear, humiliation, isolation, vulnerability, resentment, and self-hatred.43 Racist expression is a "dignitary affront,"" particularly powerful because "racial insults . . . conjure up the entire history of racial discrimination in this country."4 5 Bigoted insults may almost amount to physical violence to the target. 6 Specific physiological and emotional harms to the victims include "fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, posttraumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide."A7 Exposure to hate speech interferes with the targets' access to and enjoyment of educational opportunities in the university context.48 In addition, hate speech alienates the student from the school.49 When hate speech goes unpunished, the victim of the speech and members of the targeted group may feel disenfranchised from their university.50 Lack of discipline from university officials may be perceived as approval of the racist messages. The cumulative effect of the individual harms and the alienation of the student may result in a hostile environment to the minority groups and a denial of an equal opportunity for education. Thus, hate speech not only leads to stress, but it leads to a detrimental effect on academic opportunity and performance.s3 Implicit in this Article is a belief that university hate speech policies should thus be drafted to ensure equal access to education and prevent interference with the educational process.
10 +
11 +Hate speech is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes of groups from which people cannot withdraw. Hartman ‘93
12 +Hartman, Rhonda G University of Pittsburgh Professor of Law, University of Cambridge, University of Pittsburgh. "Hateful Expression and First Amendment Values: Toward a Theory of Constitutional Constraint on Hate Speech at Colleges and Universities after RAV v. St. Paul." JC and UL 19 (1992): 343. CL
13 +
14 +Indeed, several studies confirm the widespread presence of minority, religious, and gender stereotypes and the concomitant stigmatizing effect on individual members of group stereotypes.' 69 These studies emphasize the important role of defamatory stereotypes in maintaining prejudicial attitudes that lead to racial, cultural and social discrimination. 170 Defamation directed at a group may defame no less than if directed at an individual. 1 71 It is precisely because defamation can sweep with a broad brush that it is more difficult to avoid; there are some groups from which an individual cannot disengage. 172 As the Court stated in Beauharnais: A man's job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial and religious group to which he willy-nilly belongs, as on his own merits. This being so, we are precluded from saying that speech concededly punishable when immediately directed at individuals cannot be outlawed if directed at groups with whose position and esteem in society the affiliated individual may be inextricably involved.173 Certainly, students cannot withdraw from their race or sex as they can from voluntary groups like political parties or campus social organizations. Consequently, it is far more difficult to avoid the injurious effect of hate speech directed toward minorities or women. Even disputed empirical evidence of harm should not undercut a college's or university's authority to choose which set of conclusions to adopt, so long as some arguable correlation links the expression and harm. The causal link between an injury and a specific publication that helped sustain or create a climate of prejudice in which injuries arise may not be obvious. Indeed, many of the harms that result from defamation may not manifest themselves until sometime after the publication. 174 Although causation may be impossible to chart empirically, reasonable persons perceive the correlation. Moreover, society, as well as a college or university, has an interest in eradicating discrimination and preventing harm to the education of minorities and women. In Healy v. James' 75 the Court expressly acknowledged the university's interest "in an environment free from disruptive interference with the education process.' 176 No one can deny that a disruption of an equal learning environment occurs when, for example, black students hear that they "don't belong in classrooms, they belong hanging from trees," when an Asian student is told, "die, Chink. Hostile Americans want your yellow hide," or when female students are described as "fat housewives."'177 Such demeaning expressions injure self-image, undermine self-confidence, and alienate the victimized student from the college or university . 17 Hate speech hinders learning and participation in and out of class. It also may frustrate a college's or university's efforts to attract minority and female faculty members and students.
15 +
16 +Racist speech, set aside from its impacts, creates deontic harm in that it causes psychological injury and we cannot accept it and continue to follow our principle of equality actively. Post ‘90
17 +Post, Robert C. 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 "Racist speech, democracy, and the first amendment." Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 32 (1990): 267. MC
18 +A recurring theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression ought to be regulated because it creates what has been termed "deontic" harm.18 The basic point is that there is an "elemental wrongness"' 9 to racist expression, regardless of the presence or absence of particular empirical consequences such as "grievous, severe psychological injury. ' 20 It is argued that toleration for racist expression is inconsistent with respect for "the principle of equality" 2' that is at the heart of the fourteenth amendment. 22 ¶ The thrust of this argument is that a society committed to ideals of social and political equality cannot remain passive: it must issue unequivocal expressions of solidarity with vulnerable minority groups and make positive statements affirming its commitment to those ideals. Laws prohibiting racist speech must be regarded as important components of such expressions and statements.3 ¶ If the basic harm of racist expression lies in its intrinsic and symbolic incompatibility with egalitarian ideals, then the distinct class of communications subject to legal regulation will be defined by reference to those ideals. If the fourteenth amendment is thought to enshrine an antidiscrimination principle, then "any speech (in its widest sense) which supports racial prejudice or discrimination" 24 ought to be subject to regulation. If the relevant ideals are thought to embody substantive racial equality, then the relevant class of communications should be defined as speech containing a "message . ..of racial inferiority."25
19 +
20 +Racist speech in itself is a form of spirit murder. Post ‘90
21 +Post, Robert C. 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 "Racist speech, democracy, and the first amendment." Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 32 (1990): 267. MC
22 +A third prominent theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression harms individuals. This theme essentially analogizes racist expression to forms of communication that are regulated by the dignitary torts of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The law compensates persons for dignitary and emotional injuries caused by such communication, and it is argued that racist expression ought to be subject to regulation because it causes similar injuries. These injuries include "feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred,"'3 2 as well as "dignitary affront."33 The injuries are particularly powerful because "racial insults . . . conjure up the entire history of racial discrimination in this country." In Patricia Williams' striking phrase, racist expression is a form of "spirit-murder." 35
23 +B. Dignity
24 +Hate speech harms human dignity. Fish describes Waldron’s argument.
25 +Fish ’12 - Stanley Fish, “The Harm in Free Speech, “ New York Times. June 4, 2012. Accessed January 9, 2017. (Stanley Waldron is a Prof. of Law, NYU.) AT
26 +Jeremy Waldron’s new book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” might well be called “The Harm in Free Speech”; for Waldron, a professor of law and political theory at New York University and Oxford, argues that the expansive First Amendment we now possess allows the flourishing of harms a well-ordered society ought not permit. ¶ Waldron is especially concerned with the harm done by hate speech to the dignity of those who are its object. He is careful to distinguish “dignity harms” from the hurt feelings one might experience in the face of speech that offends. Offense can be given by almost any speech act — in particular circumstances one might offend by saying “hello” — and Waldron agrees with those who say that regulating offensive speech is a bad and unworkable idea. ¶ But harms to dignity, he contends, involve more than the giving of offense. They involve undermining a public good, which he identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. It is the assurance — not given explicitly at the beginning of each day but built into the community’s mode of self-presentation — that he belongs, that he is the undoubted bearer of a dignity he doesn’t have to struggle for. ¶ Waldron’s thesis is that hate speech assaults that dignity by taking away that assurance. The very point of hate speech, he says, “is to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups — that they are accepted … as a matter of course, along with everyone else.” Purveyors of hate “aim to undermine this assurance, call it in question, and taint it with visible expressions of hatred, exclusion and contempt.” ¶ “Visible” is the key word. It is the visibility of leaflets, signs and pamphlets asserting that the group you belong to is un-American, unworthy of respect, and should go back where it came from that does the damage, even if you, as an individual, are not a specific target. “In its published, posted or pasted-up form, hate speech can become a world-defining activity, and those who promulgate it know very well — this is part of their intention — that the visible world they create is a much harder world for the targets of their hatred to live in.” (Appearances count.) ¶ Even though hate speech is characterized by First Amendment absolutists as a private act of expression that should be protected from government controls and sanctions, Waldron insists that “hate speech and defamation are actions performed in public, with a public orientation, aimed at undermining public goods.” That undermining is not accomplished by any particular instance of hate speech. ¶ But just as innumerable individual automobile emissions can pollute the air, so can innumerable expressions of supposedly private hate combine to “produce a large-scale toxic effect” that operates as a “slow-acting poison.” And since what is being poisoned is the well of public life, “it is natural,” says Waldron, “to think that the law should be involved — both in its ability to underpin the provision of public goods and in its ability to express and communicate common commitments.” After all, he reminds us, “Societies do not become well ordered by magic.” ¶ Waldron observes that legal attention to large-scale structural, as opposed to individual, harms is a feature of most other Western societies, which, unlike the United States, have hate speech regulations on their books. He finds it “odd and disturbing that older and cruder models remain dominant in the First Amendment arena.” But as he well knows, it is not so odd within the perspective of current First Amendment rhetoric, which is militantly libertarian, protective of the individual’s right of self-assertion no matter what is being asserted, and indifferent (relatively) to the effects speech freely uttered might have on the fabric of society. ¶ It was not always thus. At one time, both the content and effects of speech were taken into account when the issue of regulation was raised. Is this the kind of speech we want our children to see and hear? Are the effects of certain forms of speech so distressing and potentially dangerous that we should take steps to curtail them? Is this form of speech a contribution to the search for truth? Does it have a redeeming social value? Since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) these questions, which assess speech in terms of the impact it has in the world, have been replaced by a simpler question — is it speech? — that reflects a commitment to speech as an almost sacrosanct activity. If the answer to that question is “yes,” the presumption is that it should be protected, even though the harms it produces have been documented. ¶ Waldron wants to bring back the focus on those harms and restore the reputation of Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), in which the Supreme Court upheld a group libel law. The case turned on the conviction of a man who had distributed leaflets warning Chicagoans to be alert to the dangers of mongrelization and rape that will surely materialize, he claimed, if white people do not unite against the Negro. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that “a man’s job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial group to which he willy-nilly belongs as on his own merit.” ¶ With the phrase “on his own merit,” Frankfurter gestures toward the view of dignity he is rejecting, the view in which dignity wells up from the inside of a man (or woman) and depends on an inner strength that asserts itself no matter how adverse or hostile external circumstances may be, including the circumstance in which the individual is confronted with signs, posters and pamphlets demeaning his race or ethnic origin or religion or sexual preference. In this picture, the responsibility for maintaining dignity rests with the individual and not with any state duty to devise rules and regulations to protect it. ¶ Some who take this position argue that if the individual feels victimized by expressions of hate directed at the group to which he “willy-nilly” belongs, that is his or her own choice. Waldron’s example is C. Edwin Baker (“Harm, Liberty and Free Speech,” Southern California Law Review, 1997), who writes: “A speaker’s racial epithet … harms the hearer only through her understanding of the message … and harm occurs only to the extent that the hearer (mentally) responds one way rather than another, for example, as a victim rather than as a critic of the speaker.” ¶ In this classic instance of blaming the victim, the fault lies with a failure of resolve; self-respect was just not strong enough to rise to the occasion in a positive way. Waldron calls this position “silly” (it is the majority’s position in Plessy v. Ferguson) and points out that it mandates and celebrates a harm by requiring victims of hate speech to grin and bear it: “It should not be necessary,” he declares, “for hate speech victims to laboriously conjure up the courage to go out and try to flourish in what is now presented to them as a … hostile environment.” The damage, Waldron explains, is already done by the speech “in requiring its targets to resort to the sort of mental mediation that Baker recommends.” To the extent that those targets are put on the defensive, “racist speech has already succeeded in one of its destructive aims.” ¶ Notice that here (and elsewhere in the book), Waldron refuses to distinguish sharply between harm and representation. In the tradition he opposes, harm or hurt is physically defined; one can be discomforted and offended by speech; but something more than speech or image is required for there to be genuine (and legally relevant) damage. After all, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” ¶ No, says Waldron (and here he follows Catharine MacKinnon’s argument about pornography), the speech is the damage: “The harms emphasized in this book are often harms constituted by speech rather than merely caused by speech.” If the claim were that the harm is caused by speech, there would be room to challenge the finding by pointing to the many intervening variables that break or complicate the chain of causality. But there is no chain to break if harm is done the moment hate speech is produced. “The harm is the dispelling of assurance, and the dispelling of assurance is the speech act.” ¶ Waldron knows that the underlying strategy of those he writes against is to elevate the status of expression to an ultimate good and at the same time either deny the harm – the statistics are inconclusive; the claims cannot be proved — or minimize it in relation to the threat regulation poses to free expression. If “free speech trumps any consideration of social harm … almost any showing of harm resulting from hate speech … will be insufficient to justify restrictions on free speech of the kind that we are talking about.” ¶ In short, the game is over before it begins if your opponent can be counted on to say that either there is no demonstrated harm or, no matter how much harm there may be, it will not be enough to justify restrictions on speech. If that’s what you’re up against, there is not much you can do except point out the categorical intransigence of the position and offer an (unflattering) explanation of it. ¶ Waldron’s explanation is that the position is formulated and presented as an admirable act of unflinching moral heroism by white liberal law professors who say loudly and often that we must tolerate speech we find hateful. Easy to say from the protected perch of a faculty study, where the harm being talked about is theoretical and not experienced. ¶ But what about the harm done “to the groups who are denounced or bestialized in pamphlets, billboards, talk radio and blogs? … Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled in a social environment polluted by those materials”? ¶ Waldron answers “no,” and he challenges society and its legal system to do something about it. But the likelihood that something will be done is slim if Waldron is right about the state of First Amendment discourse: “In the American debate, the philosophical arguments about hate speech are knee-jerk, impulsive and thoughtless.” Not the arguments of this book, however; they hit the mark every time.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-12 19:07:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Castillo, Paramo
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harbard Westlake IP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Hate Speech Dignity DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake Round Robin
Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-03 03:24:59.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nicholas Rogers
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +San Marino
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alta
Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-12 19:07:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Castillo, Paramo
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harbard Westlake IP
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake Round Robin

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)