Changes for page Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 4 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 19:19:32. 9281 +2016-12-16 19:19:32.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +29,30,31,32,33,34
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +AFF actors should remove all restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech, and ban the usage of all hate speech, including hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness. 2 +Jared Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12, Why We Should Ban “Hate Speech”, American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ **Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron’s position //LADI 3 +First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition and set us apart from virtually every other country. They are not without critics, however, and the free speech guarantees under sharpest attack are those that protect so-called “hate speech.” Jeremy Waldron, an academic originally from New Zealand, has written a whole book explaining why “hate speech” does not deserve protection—and Harvard University Press has published it. Prof. Waldron teaches law and philosophy at New York University Law School, is a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and is an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand. Perhaps his foreign origins influence his view of the First Amendment. In this book, Professor Waldron makes just one argument for banning “hate speech.” It is not a good argument, and if this is the best the opponents of free speech can do, the First Amendment should be secure. However, in the current atmosphere of “anti-racism,” any argument against “hate speech” could influence policy, so let us understand his argument as best we can. First, Professor Waldron declares that “we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences.” Western societies are determined to let in every sort of person imaginable and make them feel respected and equal in every way. “Inclusiveness” is something “that our society sponsors and that it is committed to.” Therefore, what would we make of a “hate speech” billboard that said: “Muslims and 9/11! Don’t serve them, don’t speak to them, and don’t let them in”? Or one with a picture of Muslim children that said “They are all called Osama”? Or posters that say such things as “Muslims out,” “No blacks allowed,” or “All blacks should be sent back to Africa”? Professor Waldron writes that it is all very well for law professors and white people to say that this is the price we pay for free expression, but we must imagine what it must be like for the Muslim or black who must explain these messages to his children. “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 these materials?” Professor Waldron insists that a “sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good,” like pretty beaches or clean air, and is so precious that the law should require everyone to maintain it: Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . . It creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good. Professor Waldron tells us that the purpose of “hate speech” is to try to set up a “rival public good” in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-16 19:19:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Matthew Luevano - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brookfield East RL - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Hate Speech PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Blake
- Caselist.CitesClass[34]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +The United States Federal Government should repeal the Patriot Act – that’s key to increase free speech and foster progressive criticism of the status quo on campuses. 2 +Macdonald 03 Morgan MacDonald, Patriot Act stifles dissent on campus, Baltimore Sun, 11/24/03, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-24/news/0311240117_1_student-groups-student-information-college-campuses //LADI 3 +AS A COLLEGE student, I am acutely aware of both the legal and social effects of the USA Patriot Act on my life and on the lives of my peers. Passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act has led to a broadening of governmental power to define protest as terrorism and to intrude on our fundamental rights as citizens. I am concerned by the Patriot Act's impact on the lives of all citizens, but especially on my peers in colleges across the country. No matter what provision of the Patriot Act we examine, its effects are tenfold on a college campus. A college campus is highly interconnected in every imaginable way, and in that sense differs from the typical small American city. Students are plugged into one central Internet server, student records are compiled in one database, students live in centralized college housing, student groups meet on campus, and so on. To monitor for "subversive" activity or to track a specific e-mail account is made exponentially easier when all the information is centralized and in the control of school administrations. Students on college campuses have far less privacy than the average person. When this problem is compounded by the expansion of government oversight, students' rights are placed in the most precarious of positions. Under the Patriot Act, student groups can be labeled "terrorist" organizations if they engage in certain types of protest or civil disobedience. In Minnesota, student groups such as Anti-Racist Action and Students Against War were labeled as potential terrorist threats. The government can demand that schools hand over student information without presenting probable cause that a crime has been committed. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, more than 200 colleges and universities have turned over student information to the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service and other law enforcement agencies. Some college police are reporting directly to federal law enforcement agencies, thus allowing the government to monitor the actions of student groups and individual students without notification to the students or even college administrators. Beyond violating constitutionally guaranteed rights, the effect of the Patriot Act on college campuses is to create a suffocating educational and social atmosphere. The result of this legislation is the slow deterioration of student involvement and full intellectual participation on college campuses. If students are not allowed to express themselves in college - to question authority and to team with other students for positive social change - America's future is bleak. I am infuriated when I sit in a student anti-war strategy meeting and one of my peers says she cannot participate in our protest because she is not from the United States and fears the consequences of her actions. That is not the American way. That is not how universities contribute to progress in this country. Those who drafted the Patriot Act failed to create legislation that protects both the safety and the rights of each American. That lack of attention to our country's fundamental values is striking college campuses like a hidden illness. America is a country that advocates free speech and free expression because of the belief that a marketplace of contradictory opinions is beneficial to the progress of society. When students are deterred from participating in free discussion and demonstrations of individuality, the marketplace of ideas loses one of its biggest and most essential contributors. We are not afraid to oppose the Patriot Act because we know the consequences of its implementation. The destruction of our educational freedom must not be allowed. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-16 19:19:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Matthew Luevano - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brookfield East RL - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Patriot Act CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Blake
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-29 12:41:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc Jan Feb
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-29 12:47:34.891 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB Misc