Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[51]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[68]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[51]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-04-29 16:30:36.689
	1	+2017-04-29 16:30:36.0

Caselist.CitesClass[68]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
	1	+=1NC v Alex=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+==1==
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====They are correct that neoliberalism is violent, but their reading of it is outdated – we live in an era of semiocapitalism, which taps cognitive, rather than material, labor. Their continued demand for activism, free speech, and broader democratic critique is exemplar of this affective capitalism. This is the basis for a psychologically distraught culture which lacks empathy and is continuously co-opted. Modernity has fragmented humanities' sensibility through the twin forces of rendering linguistics as a merely functional, linear, tool devoid of affective investment and the removal of authentic human interaction through mandated productivity. ====
	8	+Franco Bifo **Berardi,** 20**15**
	9	+Berardi was a member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation and expelled for factionalism, was/is involved in the political movement of Autonomia, has contributed to Semiotexte, Chimerees, Metropli, and Felix, currently collaborating on the magazine Derive Approdi, and teaches social history of communication at Accademia de belle Arti in Milan. "Heroes – Mass Murder and Suicide" pp. 47-50
	10	+In her 1975 book The Show and Tell Machine, Rose Goldsen describes a future
	11	+AND
	12	+fragmented, fractured and finally recombined in the abstract space of the internet.
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====They do not get rid of spatial control – they merely make it decentralized. Mobilizing activism through representative democracy is complicit with the tactics of governmentality which totalize resistance into the narrow purviews of civic engagement and institutional politics. This saps radicality and gives rise to popular fascism; activism must overthrow demands for representation through a nomadic tactic of formlessness resistance that refuses to yield to clear political motives. ====
	16	+Marcelo **Svirsky,** 20**10**
	17	+Svirksy is a professor of critical and cultural theory at Cardiff University. "Introduction: Beyond the Royal Science of Politics" Deleuze Studies, Vol. 4, pp 3. ~~brackets for ableism~~
	18	+Rather than problematising the political, this royal understanding of activism uses its 'metric
	19	+AND
	20	+to confront and possibly overcome political inhibitions, in both knowledge and practice.
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====The role of the ballot is to vote for the best methodology to cultivate subjectivity. ====
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====Vote negative to play a game of imaginary ruins – a communist critique which incites negativity through an imagined destruction and reformation of spaces around you. In postmodernity, where direct action seems nearly impossible, negative imaginaries become a praxis for resistance, creating a refusal to oblige an economy of positive affect. This strategy engages in a personal politics while at the same time enabling a "lying in wait" in the time we "do nothing" to ferment our hatred, anger, and depression into new horizons for subjectivity. ====
	27	+John **Cunningham, **20**15**
	28	+"Negation At A Standstill" published in "Bad Feelings" a collection produced by Arts Against Cuts and published by Book Works as part of Common Objectives, guest edited by Nina Power; edited and designed by Louis Hartnoll, Lucy Killoran, Robyn Minogue, and Sophie Carapetian.
	29	+Imaginary Ruins There's a game that can be played when walking through the city.
	30	+AND
	31	+The stalling of negation might in itself provide the possibility of rethinking it.
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+==Case ==
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+===Alt causes===
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====Their own author isolates a multitude of alternative causes for their impacts that zoning won't specifically solve – speech codes and vagueness. In addition – the courts are already overturning what the plan does – it's not needed. ====
	41	+**Hudson 16 – their advocacy article** (David L. Hudson Jr. is a First Amendment expert and law professor who serves as First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center. He contributes research and commentary, provides analysis and information to news media. He is an author, co-author or co-editor of more than 40 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008) (one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He writes regularly for the ABA Journal and the American Bar Association's Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. He has served as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Supreme Court, and teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt Law School and various classes at the Nashville School of Law), "How Campus Policies Limit Free Speech," Huffington Post, 12/16/2016 GB
	42	+Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where freedom of expression flourishes. Sadly, that is not the case. At a recent debate on the Yale University campus, 66 percent of the attendees supported a proposition that “free speech is threatened.” Places of higher learning seem more interested in “safe spaces” rather than in freedom of expression. Several incidents across campuses illustrate this. Recently, at Emory, students complained after they found chalk messages scrawled around campus voicing support for Donald J. Trump. Last year at the University of Ottawa, a yoga class designed for handicapped people was suspended because the student federation thought it was a form of “cultural appropriation.” And at Smith College a student sit-in blocked media from entering unless reporters agreed to explicitly state support for the movement in their coverage. Illustrating how contentious the debates have become, two of the most respected American comedians, Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld, said that colleges are eager “not to offend anybody.” Some students at a private Ivy League school even signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment. Ideally, colleges and universities would foster an exchange of competing and controversial ideas. The reality is much different. Some colleges and universities limit discourse by silencing speech that might offend others through so-called speech codes and free speech zones. In studying free expression issues for more than 20 years, I strongly believe such polices have led to a chilling effect on speech. They also have led to a mentality where students do not wish or want to face an opposing viewpoint. So, what are these policies? Combating hateful speech First, let’s look at speech codes on campuses. A speech code refers to a set of provisions or regulations that limit certain types of offensive or harassing speech. Colleges and universities usually don’t call their regulations speech codes. Instead, they refer to them as anti-harassment policies. It was in the 1980s and 1990s that more than 300 colleges passed these policies to combat hateful speech. Schools tried to address harassment of gays and lesbians, women and members of other ethnic groups. The policies were further enforced when white students wore blackface for sorority and fraternity parties. Many schools were trying to achieve more diversity in their student bodies. The intent was good. Many of these policies sought to prohibit speech or conduct that created an intimidating or harassing environment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other criteria. However, the results were not good for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Policies at the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin were invalidated on First Amendment free speech grounds. At the University of Wisconsin, for example, university officials adopted the speech code after several racially insensitive displays at fraternities. For example, one fraternity held a “slave auction.” A student newspaper and several others challenged the policy on the ground that the policies infringed on academic freedom and stifled some legitimate speech. In UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin (1991), a federal district court struck down the policy, writing: The suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control. Similar problems occurred at Michigan, which had its share of disturbing racially charged incidents. At Michigan, a student disc jockey allowed racist jokes to be aired. University officials reacted with a speech code. The problem was that officials applied the policy to chill the speech of students engaged in classroom discussion or academic research. A federal district court judge invalidated the policy in Doe v. University of Michigan (1989), writing: While the Court is sympathetic to the University’s obligation to ensure equal educational opportunities for all of its students, such efforts must not be at the expense of free speech. The problem was that these codes were not drafted with sufficient precision. Courts ruled that these polices were either too broad or too vague. Overbreadth and vagueness problems A policy is too broad if it prohibits speech that ought to be protected in addition to speech that can be prohibited. In legal terms, this is called “overbreadth”. For example, a policy that prohibits “offensive and annoying” speech sweeps too broadly and prohibits lawful expression. A policy is too vague if a person has to guess at its meaning. Vagueness is rooted in the notion that it is fundamentally unfair to punish someone when they did not know that their speech violated the policy. For example, the University of Michigan had a policy that prohibited “stigmatizing or victimizing” individuals or groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status. In Doe v. University of Michigan, a federal district court judge ruled the policy too vague, writing: Students of common understanding were necessarily forced to guess at whether a comment about a controversial issue would later be found to be sanctionable under the Policy. Controversies still abound over speech codes at colleges and universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) regularly challenges policies that it believes run afoul of the First Amendment. In its annual report, the group contends that nearly half of the speech codes at 440 colleges infringe on First Amendment free speech rights. FIRE contends in its report that “any speech code in force at a public university is extremely vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.”
	43	+
	44	+===Status-quo solves===
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Status-quo solves – legislation and courts are ruling against free speech zones.====
	48	+Jackson **Richman, **5/31/**16**
	49	+http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/31/arizona-cracks-down-on-free-speech-zones/ "Arizona Cracks Down On 'Free Speech Zones'"
	50	+Two weeks ago, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill into law that would eliminate “free speech zones” that restrict the First Amendment on college campuses, according to the Arizona Republic. Arizona House Bill 2615 will eliminate “free speech zones” at the state’s colleges and replace these spaces with a monument or memorial. Introduced by Republican state Rep. Anthony Kern, the law provides students the right to exercise free speech without restrictions unless the college can prove such a restriction as reasonable or justified. It also gives students the right to file a lawsuit and receive a settlement if the court decides the the school has restricted the student’s speech. In a statement, Ducey said, “Part of the university experience is to be able to express diverse views, openly, without fear of retribution or intimidation — and to be exposed to other views and perspectives, even if they aren’t politically correct or popular. The law related to free speech throughout the state’s higher education institutions comes in the aftermath of Paradise Valley Community College, currently involved in a lawsuit for creating a free speech zone which prosecutors said had a traumatic effect on students. In the suit, a student accuses the school of limiting her First Amendment right while she passed out copies of the U.S. Constitution while talking to students about starting a Young Americans for Liberty chapter.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-04-29 16:30:38.802

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kassie Colon

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada AZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+51

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Millard North Brown Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3 - K - Form Policing

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tournament of Champions