| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,20 @@ |
|
1 |
+Interpretation: topical plans end restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech, not freedom of the press. |
|
2 |
+Fredom of press and freedom of speech are legally distinct |
|
3 |
+Wells, Thomas R., PhD. "Freedom of the Press Is Not the Same as Freedom of Speech." The Philosopher's Beard. N.p., 3 Jan. 2013. Web. |
|
4 |
+Freedom of the ... underlying intrinsic moral claim. |
|
5 |
+ |
|
6 |
+Speech refers to spoken word, as opposed to press which refers to printed word |
|
7 |
+Volokh 12 (Eugene, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, “FREEDOM FOR THE PRESS AS AN INDUSTRY, OR FOR THE PRESS AS A TECHNOLOGY? FROM THE FRAMING TO TODAY “. 2012. p.g. 475 AK) Brackets found in the original. |
|
8 |
+The freedom of ... “printing and publishing.” |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+Violation: |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+Standards |
|
13 |
+1 Textuality: the aff has a deontological obligation to be topical – this both excludes pragmatic justifications and controls key internal links to them. |
|
14 |
+Nebel 15 - 1 (Jake Nebel, a gucci dude, “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics” February 2015 AK) |
|
15 |
+A second strategy ... I discuss below. |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+2 |
|
18 |
+Drop the debater on T: |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+Yes competing interps: |