Changes for page Marlborough Kim Neg
Summary
-
Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 3 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 12 removed)
Details
- Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Golden Desert-Round5.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29.6 KB - Content
- Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard Westlake RR-Round5.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -28.8 KB - Content
- Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard Westlake Round Robin-Round1.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31.0 KB - Content
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 03:25:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nicholas Rogers - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -San Marino - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOV DEC Body Cameras CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alta
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-12 19:07:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Castillo, Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harbard Westlake IP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -15 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB Hate Speech Dignity DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake Round Robin
- Caselist.CitesClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hate speech codes are becoming more prevalent on college campuses. Gould ‘01 2 -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 3 -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. 4 - 5 -Speech codes successfully challenge the words we use which are inexplicably linked to our thoughts. Therefore, they are able to target the deep rooted racism that usually goes unaddressed. Yun and Delgado ‘94 6 -Yun, David H. Member of the Colorado bar. J.D., University of Colorado and Richard Delgado Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U.C.- Berkeley. "The Neoconservative Case Against Hate-Speech Regulation—Lively, D'Souza, Gates, Carter, and the Toughlove Crowd." Vanderbilt Law Review 47 (1994). MC 7 -A second reason why even neoconservatives ought to pause before throwing their weight against hate-speech rules has to do with the nature of latter-day racism. Most neoconservatives, like many white people, think that acts of out-and-out discrimination are rare today. The racism that remains is subtle, "institutional," or "latter- day."4 It lies in the arena of unarticulated feelings, practices, and patterns of behavior (like promotions policy) on the part of institu- tions as well as individuals. A forthright focus on speech and lan- guage may be one of the few means of addressing and curing this kind of racism. Thought and language are inextricably connected. A speaker who is asked to reconsider his or her use of language may begin to reflect on the way he or she thinks about a subject. Words, external manifestations of thought, supply a window into the uncon- scious. Our choice of word, metaphor, or image gives signs of the attitudes we have about a person or subject. No readier or more effective tool than a focus on language exists to deal with subtle or latter-day racism. Since neoconservatives are among the prime pro- ponents of the notion that this form of racism is the only (or the main) one that remains, they should think carefully before taking a stand in opposition to measures that might make inroads into it. Of course, speech codes would not reach every form of demeaning speech or depiction. But a tool's unsuitability to redress every aspect of a prob- lem is surely no reason for refusing to employ it where it is effective. 8 -Especially turns the AC because it proves that the state isn’t the sole causation of hate speech it proves that it lies within a speaker’s own power play 9 -Hate speech restrictions on college campuses have been used to punish those that perpetrate hate speech. Wisconsin’s codes proves. 10 -Hodulik, Patricia UW JD. "Racist Speech on Campus." Wayne Law Review 37.3 (1991): 1433-1450. GK 11 -The most serious concerns about adopting a rule restricting discriminatory harassment or hate speech were those involving legal questions as to whether any sort of restriction on expressive behavior could be accepted in a university setting. The Wisconsin cases, however, provide little evidence to suggest that free expression has been deterred or suppressed as a result of enforcement of the university's antiharassment regulation. 12 -In the eighteen months in which it has been in force, a total of thirty-two complaints have been filed alleging violations of the Wisconsin rule.14 Of these, thirteen were dismissed because they were found not to violate the rule;35 two were dismissed following a hearing; and in ten cases, discipline was imposed. 36 The disciplinary sanctions imposed included one written apology, one warning letter, seven disciplinary probations and one suspension. 37 All cases resulting in probation or suspension also involved conduct which violated some other provision of the student conduct codean assault, a threat, or disorderly conduct, for example.38 In no case was discipline imposed in connection with a classroom discussion or expression of opinion.3 9 In most of the cases leading to discipline, the rule violation involved the use of a discriminatory epithet rather than "other expressive behavior." 4 13 -As the controversy over speech rules has continued in the press and other media, they have been cited as evidence of a trend toward thought control, "politically correct" thinking, and other repressive evils. 41 There is, however, little in these cases to suggest that the Wisconsin regulation has had the effect of cutting off debate within the university community, or that a narrow restriction on discriminatory, harassing speech creates a threat to free expression. Rather, the practical experiences with the Wisconsin rule indicate that the risk of a "chilling effect" on speech from a narrowly applicable rule is minimal or nonexistent. 14 - 15 -Impact 1: Hate Crimes 16 -Racist speech and actions escalate. Permission normalizes racist speech and makes racists more likely to lash out at minorities. Delgado and Yun ’94: 17 -Delgado, Richard, Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U.C.- Berkeley and David H. Yun Member of the Colorado bar. J.D., University of Colorado. "Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation." California Law Review 82 (1994): 871. MC 18 -The pressure valve argument holds that rules prohibiting hate speech are unwise because they increase the danger racism poses to minorities. FN50 Forcing racists to bottle up their dislike of minority group members means that they will be more likely to say or do something hurtful later. Free speech thus functions as a pressure valve, allowing tension to dissipate before it reaches a dangerous level. FN5l Pressure valve proponents argue that if minorities understood this, they would oppose antiracism rules. ¶ The argument is paternalistic; it says we are denying you what you say you want, and we are doing it for your own good. The rules, which you think will help you, will really make matters worse. If you knew this, you would join us in opposing them. ¶ Hate speech may make the speaker feel better, at least temporarily, but it does not make the victim safer. Quite the contrary. the psychological evidence suggests that permitting one person to say or do hateful things to another increases, rather than decreases, the chance that he or she will do so again in the future. FN52 Moreover, others may believe it is permissible to follow suit. FNS3 Human beings are not mechanical objects. Our behavior is more complex than the laws of physics that describe pressure valves, tanks, and the behavior of a gas or liquid in a tube. In particular, we use symbols to construct our social world, a world that contains categories and expectations for "black," "woman," "child," "criminal," 'wartime enemy," and so on. FN54 Once the roles we create for these categories are in place, they govern "879 the way we speak of and act toward members of those categories in the future. FN55 ¶ Even simple barnyard animals act on the basis of categories. Poultry farmers know that a chicken with a single speck of blood will be peeked to death by the others. FN56 With chickens, of course, the categories are neural and innate, functioning at a level more basic than language. But social science experiments demonstrate that the way we categorize others affects our treatment of them. An Iowa teacher's famous "blue eyeslbrown eyes" experiment showed that even a one-day assignment of stigma can change behavior and school performance. FN57 At Stanford University, Phillip Zimbardo assigned students to play the roles of prisoner and prison guard, but was forced to discontinue the experiment when some of the participants began taking their roles too seriously. FN58 And Diane Sculley's interviews with male sexual offenders showed that many did not see themselves as offenders at all. In fact, research suggests that exposure to sexually violent pornography increases men's antagonism toward women and intensifies rapists' belief that their victims really welcomed their attentions. FNS9 At Yale University. Stanley Milgram showed that many members of a university *880 community could be made to violate their conscience if an authority figure invited them to do so and assured them this was the evidence. then, suggests that allowing persons to stigmatize or revile others makes them more aggressive, not less so. Once the speaker forms the category of deserved-victim, his or her behavior may well continue and escalate to bullying and physical violence. Further, the studies appear to demonstrate that stereotypical treatment tends to generalize ~-~- what we do teaches others that they may do likewise. Pressure valves may be safer after letting off steam; human beings are not. 19 - 20 -Impact 2: Psychological Violence 21 -Racist speech causes immense psychological harm which spills-over into the victims’ personal lives, forces some to disassociate from their identity, and communities who continue to excuse these events as pranks ostracizes them even more. Matsuda ‘89 22 -Matsuda, Mari J. "Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim's story." Michigan Law Review 87.8 (1989): 2320-2381.ZW 23 -Racist hate messages are rapidly increasing and are widely distributed in this country using a variety of low and high technologies.82 The negative effects of hate messages are real and immediate for the victims.83 Victims of vicious hate propaganda have experienced physiological symptoms and emotional distress ranging from fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide.84 Professor Patricia Williams has called the blow of racist messages "spirit murder" in recognition of the psychic destruction victims experience.85 ¶ Victims are restricted in their personal freedom. In order to avoid receiving hate messages, victims have had to quit jobs, forgo education, leave their homes, avoid certain public places, curtail their own exercise of speech rights, and otherwise modify their behavior and demeanor.86 The recipient of hate messages struggles with inner turmoil. One subconscious response is to reject one's own identity as a victim-group member.87 As writers portraying the African-American experience have noted, the price of disassociating from one's own race is often sanity itself.88 ¶ As much as one may try to resist a piece of hate propaganda, the effect on one's self-esteem and sense of personal security is devastating.89 To be hated, despised, and alone is the ultimate fear of all human beings. However irrational racist speech may be, it hits right at the emotional place where we feel the most pain. The aloneness comes not only from the hate message itself, but also from the government response of tolerance. When hundreds of police officers are called out to protect racist marchers,90 when the courts refuse redress for racial insult, and when racist attacks are officially dismissed as pranks, the victim becomes a stateless person. Target-group members can either identify with a community that promotes racist speech, or they can admit that the community does not include them. 24 -Turns and outweighs case. The aff assumes that freedom means the absence of government constraints, but human subjectivity cannot be conceptualized outside of our basic connections to others and the social conditions that enable autonomy. Human identity is dependent on recognition by the other. 25 -Honneth ’92 - Axel Honneth University of Frankfurt, “Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition,” Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 187-201. Sage Publications, inc. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192001 AT 26 -According to this theory, human individuation is a process in which the individual can unfold a practical identity to the extent that he is capable of reassuring himself of recognition by a growing circle of partners to communication.2 Subjects capable of language and action are constituted as individuals solely by learning, from the perspective of others who offer approval, to relate to themselves as beings who possess certain positive qualities and abilities. Thus as their consciousness of their individuality grows, they come to depend to an ever increasing extent on the conditions of recognition they are afforded by the life-world of their social environment. That particular human vulner ability signified by the concept of "disrespect" arises from this interlocking of individuation and recognition on which both Hegel and Mead based their inquiries.Since, in his normative image of self-something Mead would call his "Me"-every individual is dependent on the possibility of constant reassurance by the Other; the experience of disrespect poses the risk of an injury that can cause the identity of the entire person to collapse. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 19:08:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rebecca Kuang, Byron Arthur - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rowland Hall KO - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB Hate Speech DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -Text: Public colleges and universities will implement new hate speech codes following Byrne 90’s recommendations: 2 -Byrne, J. Peter. Faculty Director; Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute; Faculty Director, Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law B.A., Northwestern; M.A., J.D., University of Virginia "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399. MC 3 -A central argument of this article has been that the university can be trusted to administer rules prohibiting racial insults because it has the proper moral basis and adequate expertise to do so. It is not surprising, therefore, that I believe that vagueness concerns about such university rules are largely misplaced. This is not to deny that a university should adopt safeguards to protect accused students from the concerns that the courts have highlighted. First, the rules should state explicitly that no one may be disciplined for the good faith statement of any proposition susceptible to reasoned response, no matter how offensive. The possibility that punishment is precluded by this limitation should be addressed at every stage of the disciplinary process. Second, some response between punishment and acquittal should be available when the university concludes that the speaker was subjectively unaware of the offensive character of his speech; these cases seem to present mainly educational concerns. Third, all controversial issues of interpretation of the rules should be entrusted to a panel of faculty and students who are representative of the institution. Rules furthering primarily academic concerns about the quality of speech and the development of students should be given meaning by those most directly concerned with the academic enterprise rather than by administrators who may register more precisely external political pressures on the university. Given these safeguards and a comprehensible definition of an unacceptable insult, such as the one ventured in the introduction to this article,179 a court which accepts the underlying proposition that a university has the constitutional authority to regulate racial insults should not be troubled independently by vagueness. 4 - 5 -Competition 6 -1. Mutual exclusivity: The aff prohibits the restriction of all constitutional speech, hate speech is deemed constitutional in the status quo so you cannot do the aff and the CP without severing out of a part of the AC. 7 -2. Net benefits: the DA - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:28:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Eli Smith - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood JD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -17 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB Hate Speech CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -The standard is respecting human dignity. 2 -A. Because human dignity is rooted in one’s relationship to society, the state must protect people from policies that humiliate or degrade. 3 -Rao ’11 - Neomi Rao Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State; B.A., Yale University; J.D., University of Chicago Law School. ”Three concepts of dignity in constitutional law.” 86 Notre Dame Law Review 183 (2011). MO. 4 -Finally, constitutional courts often associate dignity with recognition and respect. (14) This dignity is rooted in a conception of the self as constituted by the broader community~-~-a person's identity and worth depend on his relationship to society. Accordingly, respect for a person's dignity requires recognizing and validating individuals in their particularity. This recognition requires individuals to demonstrate respect and concern for each other. What matters here is not just having a space of non-interference for one's inherent individual dignity or of living life with a particular dignity, but rather the attitude possessed by others and the state. Such dignity requires interpersonal respect, the respect of one's fellow citizens, as can be seen in laws against defamation and hate speech. The idea is that individuals need protection from insults and hateful speech in order to preserve their self-image as well as their standing in the community. Furthermore, this dignity requires the state adopt policies that express the equal worth of all individuals and their life choices, such as requiring gay marriage, not just legally equivalent civil unions, because of the expressive and symbolic importance of marriage. (15) Recognition dignity focuses on the unique and subjective feelings of self-worth possessed by each individual and group. ¶ It is perhaps in this last category where the modern concept of dignity does the most work. Dignity as recognition reflects a new political demand, not for freedom or liberty or a minimum standard of living, but rather for respect, sometimes referred to as third-generation "solidarity rights." Such rights are protected by modern human rights documents and some national constitutions. The demand for recognition, for the dignity of recognition, requires protection against the symbolic, expressive harms of policies that fail to respect the worth of each individual and group. In the first two concepts, dignity often overlaps with familiar political rights and ideals, but the dignity of recognition as a constitutional right is a new value for a new time. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 21:40:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ashan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Layton - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB Dignity NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Golden Desert
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counterplan text: The United States Federal government should abolish the entire military. That means abolishing all 5 branches of the military. Edmonds ‘04 2 -Edmonds, Brad MS in Industrial Psychology, is a banker in Alabama.. "Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military." Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military. N.p., 10 Feb. 2004. Web. 05 Feb. 2017. 3 -To address the common claim by neoconservatives that we owe our freedom to the men and women of the US military, I've written recently that we don't owe the military anything of the sort. While many soldiers, airmen, etc. died in combat believing they were defending our freedom, they were misguided in this belief. The "for our freedom" claim is false because our freedoms were won by the founders and written into law by them, hence a military created afterward could have had nothing to do with that; the freedoms then created have only eroded over time, and the military did not prevent this (and could not, not being part of the legislative process); the military has never been necessary to prevent our freedoms being taken by other countries, as historians available all over the web are now making clear; and the military over the last century has only executed the adventurous whims of individual congressmen and presidents, and in so doing has been the muscle behind needlessly making the rest of the world hate us. 4 -Aside from looking at the past, there are compelling reasons we should abolish all government military forces now. 5 -1. Any standing military force aside from the Navy is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for funding of armies only two years at a time – even the typical four-year commitment for ROTC cadets and new enlistees is thus illegal, as presumably it could not be known four years in advance that there would still be a standing Army or Air Force. Many things the federal government does today are unconstitutional, but this is no reason not to continue to consider the Constitution an authoritative document. 6 -2. The private sector could provide heavy-weapons regional defense better than the government. I neglected to mention in recent articles, but included in my "abolishing government" series, that insurers would most likely take up this task. Insurers have the resources and incentive already, and unlike the government's military, if an insurer caused "collateral damage," the insurer would be held responsible, with no protection from lawsuits. Additionally, an insurer would be required to succeed in protecting its customers, which our military isn't; and do at least as good a job of that for the dollar as the next insurer. By contrast, in today's government military, drill instructors are required to be "sensitive" rather than effective; gays and women share close quarters with men, even in combat, to the detriment of combat effectiveness; materiel is often purchased from the lowest bidder (unless the bidder represents a token minority contractor the Pentagon needs, in which case a toilet seat can cost hundreds of dollars); and in general our government military is a playground for the social-engineering initiatives of leftists in Congress, and is not dedicated primarily to its mission. The private sector, were it allowed to provide regional defense without government interference, would be more efficient, more effective, safer, and would never have incentive to engage in social engineering, nor in murderous foreign-policy adventurism and the consequent creation of bitter enemies around the world. 7 -3. Even if the military were both efficient and constitutional, a standing military is a threat to our liberty, as has been proven in US history. The ultimate test of liberty is secession. Even Lincoln himself agreed before he became president that secession is a natural right. What made a slave a slave was that he could not secede from his owner's governance and go into business for himself. What makes the states and all their citizens slaves to the union today is that we are not allowed to secede and govern ourselves. The US military, in the only action it ever took that directly affected American liberty, prevented it – prevented the secession of several states by killing 300,000 of their citizens, then over several years enforcing draconian martial law over the survivors. 8 -4. As the military is a government outfit, it can never be efficient. Indeed, as Ludwig von Mises showed, the US military, being a purely socialist government monopoly, can never know how much money it should have or spend, can never have a good idea how much its operations should cost. Right now, the US defense budget is over $1,400 for each man, woman, and child in the US. The private sector could provide a deterrent, enough to prevent any threat of foreign invasion, for probably 1/10 of that – which, remember, would still amount to $40 billion. No government agency can ever know what its costs should be; it is a forcible monopoly, and never can face bankruptcy, competition, or loss of customers. 9 -For the most part, the military as we have it is unconstitutional, as have been most of its actions since 1812 (in which war most of the work was done by privateers anyway). The private sector would do a far better job for far less money, as the individual Ross Perot proved in practical terms. The only impact the standing military has on our freedom is to take it away. And the military will eternally waste money because it cannot be governed by market forces, cannot ever know what its costs should be, cannot know what value it should return to stakeholders, and will never have an incentive to do a good job efficiently. In short, just as with any government service such as education or welfare services, it can never work well. This military must be abolished. 10 -Competitive through net benefits: the DA or turns to the AC 11 -Also Solves 100 of the AC advantages by getting rid of the very institution that the AC is criticizing and, thus, best takes back the university from militarism by just getting rid of the military itself. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-05 23:04:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Patrick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Kaya - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough Kim Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB ABOLISH THE MILITARY CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Golden Desert
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 03:24:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nicholas Rogers - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -San Marino - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alta
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-12 19:07:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Castillo, Paramo - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard%20Westlake%20Round%20Robin-Round1.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harbard Westlake IP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake Round Robin
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 19:08:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rebecca Kuang, Byron Arthur - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard%20Westlake%20RR-Round5.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rowland Hall KO - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -17 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:28:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Eli Smith - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood JD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 21:40:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ashan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Layton - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Golden Desert
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-05 23:04:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Patrick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Kaya - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Golden Desert