Changes for page Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 5 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 19:19:33. 5101 +2016-12-16 19:19:33.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +29,30,31,32,33,34
- 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.CitesClass[35]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,18 @@ 1 +Interpretation: The affirmative must defend removing restrictions on ALL constitutionally protected speech. The affirmative may only defend removing specific restrictions on time, place, or manner of protected speech. 2 +Any is defined as every 3 +Your Dictionary NO DATE (Your Dictionary, online reference, “any,” http://www.yourdictionary.com/any///LADI) 4 +every: any child can do it 5 +Any is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally 6 +Language NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns,” http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm///LADI) 7 +Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example: - I want to live abroad in Italy. - I want to live abroad somewhere. This unit covers indefinite pronouns made with some, any, no, and every. Some / any Some and any can be combined with "-thing" to refer to an undefined object. For example: - There's someone outside the door. - There isn't anyone in the office. Some and any can be combined with "-where" to refer to an undefined location. For example: - I'm looking for somewhere to live. - We don't want to live anywhere near here. Some and any can be combined with "-body" or "-one" to refer to an undefined person. There is very little difference in meaning between "-body" and "-one". For example: - If you have a problem, someone/somebody will help you. - Do you know anyone/anybody who can help? These compound nouns follow the same rules as some and any, that is some is used in affirmative statements, and any is used in negative statements and questions. For example: - I need something from the supermarket. - I don't need anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket? 8 +Restrict is defined by Merriam Webster as 9 +to subject to bounds or limits 10 +Literature about constitutionally protected speech centers on time, place, and manner restrictions, not content-based restrictions 11 +Legal Dictionary "Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions" AZ 12 +The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice. 13 +Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech 14 +Net Benefits— 15 +1. Limits 16 +A. Fairness 17 +B. Education 18 +2. Topical version of the aff - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-29 12:47:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - T Any - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB Misc
- Caselist.CitesClass[36]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@ 1 +Counterplan Text: The Supreme Court of the United States, in the next available test case, should rule that public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. 2 +Lawsuits are piling up against free speech restrictions – the counterplan strengthens First Amendment protections and solves the entirety of the case 3 +Watanabe 14 Teresa Watanabe (covers education for the LA Times), "Students challenge free-speech rules on college campuses," LA Times, 7/1/2014 AZ 4 +College students in California and three other states filed lawsuits against their campuses Tuesday in what is thought to be the first-ever coordinated legal attack on free speech restrictions in higher education. Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, a 20-year-old studying computer science, alleged that Citrus College in Glendora had violated his 1st Amendment rights by restricting his petitioning activities to a small "free-speech zone" in the campus quad. According to Sinapi-Riddle's complaint, a campus official stopped him last fall from talking to another student about his campaign against spying by the National Security Agency, saying he had strayed outside the free-speech zone. The official said he had the authority to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus if he did not comply. "It was shocking to me that there could be so much hostility about me talking to another student peacefully about government spying," Sinapi-Riddle said in an interview. "My vision of college was to express what I think." In his lawsuit, Sinapi-Riddle is challenging Citrus' free-speech zone, an anti-harassment policy that he argues is overly broad and vague and a multi-step process for approving student group events. The college had eliminated its free-speech zones in a 2003 legal settlement with another student, but last year "readopted in essence the unconstitutional policy it abandoned," the complaint alleged. College officials were not immediately available for comment. But communications director Paula Green forwarded copies of Citrus' free-speech policy, which declares that the campus is a "non-public forum" except where otherwise designated to "prevent the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the college." The policy instructs the college to enact procedures that "reasonably regulate" free expression. The "Stand Up for Speech" litigation project is sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based group that promotes free speech and due process rights at colleges and universities. Its aim is to eliminate speech codes and other campus policies that restrict expression. In a report published this year, the foundation found that 58 of 427 major colleges and universities surveyed maintain restrictive speech codes despite what it called a "virtually unbroken string of legal defeats" against them dating to 1989. Even in California — unique in the nation for two state laws that explicitly bar free speech restrictions at both public and private universities — the majority of campuses retain written speech codes, he said. Among 16 California State University campuses surveyed by the group, for instance, 11 were rated "red" for employing at least one policy that "substantially restricts" free speech. "Universities are scared of people who demand censorship ~-~- they're afraid of lawsuits and PR problems," said Robert Shibley, the foundation’s senior vice president. "Unfortunately, they are more worried about that than about ignoring their 1st Amendment responsibilities," he added. "The point of the project is to balance out the incentives that cause universities to institute rules that censor speech." The foundation intends to target campuses in each of four federal court circuits; after each case is settled, it will file another lawsuit. In other cases filed Tuesday: — Iowa State University students Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh challenged administrative rejection of their campus club T-shirt promoting legalization of marijuana. The university said the shirt violated rules that bar the use of the school name to promote "dangerous, illegal or unhealthy" products and behavior, according to the complaint. — Chicago State University faculty members Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz sued over what they said were repeated attempts to silence a blog they write on alleged administrative corruption. — Ohio University student Isaac Smith challenged the campus speech code that forbids any act that "degrades, demeans or disgraces another." University officials invoked the code to veto a T-shirt by Smith’s Students Defending Students campus group — which defends peers accused of campus disciplinary offenses. The T-shirt said, "We get you off for free," a phrase that administrators found "objectified women" and "promoted prostitution," the complaint said. 5 + 6 +Courts are better checks on implementation – they decide the birghtline for whether speech is constitutionally protected. 7 +Arthur 11 (Joyce, Founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national political pro-choice group, “The Limits of Free Speech,” Sep 21, 2011, https://rewire.news/article/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5/ 8 +A common objection to prosecuting hate speech is that it might endanger speech that counters hate speech. For example, a critique may repeat the offending words and discuss their import, or it may subvert the hate message in a subtle or creative way that could be misunderstood by some. But context is everything when determining whether speech is actually hateful or not, so this objection seems nonsensical. Any reasonable judge should be able to discern the difference in intent or effect behind a hateful message and the speech that critiques it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-29 12:47:38.875 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Misc - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Palos Verdes Le Barillec Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - Courts CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB Misc
- 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 12:47:34.0 - 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 +JANFEB Misc