Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,106 +1,0 @@
1		-==**1AC**==
2		-
3		-
4		-====I affirm the resolution, "Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech."====
5		-
6		-
7		-===Definitions===
8		-To clarify this round, I offer the following definitions:
9		-
10		-
11		-==== ~~Public Colleges and Universities~~ Merriam-Webster dictionary defines public colleges and universities as colleges and universities funded primarily by the government rather than by tuition.====
12		-
13		-
14		-==== ~~Speech~~ The legal dictionary defines constitutionally protected speech as, "The right to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction."====
15		-
16		-
17		-===Framework===
18		-I now offer the following framework to evaluate the round:
19		-
20		-
21		-==== ~~Value~~ I value morality as implied by the word ought in the resolution and because a more desirable world is one that is more moral. Therefore, the burden on the negation is to prove that world where free speech is not present is more morally desirable. If they fail to prove so, then vote affirmative by default because the affirmative world is hence, better.====
22		-
23		-
24		-====Furthermore, all people share an intrinsic value that comes from our humanity—each person has inalienable, equal human worth. Regardless of race, nationality, bodily ability, or gender, each person is born with equal rights and opportunities. There is no reason to think one person should innately be granted more privileges than another.====
25		-
26		-
27		-==== ~~Winter and Leighton 99~~ Additionally, inequality is merely a manifestation of unjustified cognitive biases that make certain groups invisible. Psychologists Winter and Leighton write====
28		-~|Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter~|~~Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice~~ "Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century." Pg 4-5~~
29		-Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about
30		-AND
31		-local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace.
32		-
33		-
34		-==== ~~Value Criterion~~ Therefore, the value criterion is to minimize structural violence by promoting strategies for criticism.====
35		-
36		-
37		-====I defend the resolution as a whole and offer the following contentions in support of a vote for the affirmative.====
38		-
39		-
40		-===Contention 1 is Killjoy===
41		-
42		-
43		-===Sub-Point A is False Hope ===
44		-
45		-
46		-====~~Strossen 90~~ Speech restrictions are used to oppress minority students - Empirically proven on and off campus. Nadine Strossen from the Duke Law Journal writes====
47		-~~Strossen, Nadine (She was the first woman and the youngest person to ever lead the ACLU. A professor at New York Law School, Strossen sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. She has been called one of the most influential business leaders, women, or lawyers in National Law Journal and Vanity Fair) "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?." http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555 , Duke Law Journal 1990.3 (Jun 1990): 484-573.~~
48		-The first reason that laws censoring racist speech may undermine the goal of combating racism
49		-AND
50		-, she had been singled out for punishment because of her ethnic background.
51		-
52		-
53		-==== ~~Fiorillo 15~~ Universities are cracking down even on professors with no explanation – dissent can be silenced on a whim in the squo. Victor Fiorillo, a Black Lives Matter activist, wrote that,====
54		-~~CCP Adjunct Professor, Black Lives Matter Activist Suspended After Speaking at Rally Divya Nair to face a disciplinary hearing this week. A Change.org petition to reinstate her has over 270 signatures. BY VICTOR FIORILLO, OCTOBER 14, 2015, http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/14/professor-suspended-black-lives-matter-divya-nair/~~
55		-Last Thursday, at a rally initiated by ~~at~~ the Revolutionary Student Coordinating
56		-AND
57		-adjunct faculty member, and they think they can get rid of her."
58		-
59		-
60		-===Sub-Point B is Counterspeech ===
61		-
62		-
63		-==== ~~Calleros 95~~ Counter speech is effective and empowers activism. Charles Calleros, professor of law at Arizona State University, furthers====
64		-~~Charles R. Calleros, ASU Professor of Law, Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1249 (1995).~~
65		-Speech as an Instrument of Reform: The Efficacy of Counterspeech Delgado and Yun summarize
66		-AND
67		-for, and some limitations on, their participation in such partisan speech.
68		-
69		-
70		-==== ~~**Giroux 16~~** Confronting oppressive conditions SHOULD make you feel uncomfortable. Limiting speech prevents a critical pedagogy that can teach students to fight oppression. **Henry Giroux, a famous theorist of critical pedagogy, writes in 2016====**
71		-~~Henry A. (Henry Armand Giroux was born September 18, 1943, in Providence, Rhode Island, the son of Armand and Alice Giroux. Giroux received his Doctorate from Carnegie-Mellon in 1977. He then became professor of education at Boston University from 1977 to 1983. In 1983 he became professor of education and renowned scholar in residence at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio where he also served as Director at the Center for Education and Cultural Studies. He moved to Penn State Univeristy where he took up the Waterbury Chair Professorship at Penn State University from 1992 to May 2004. He also served as the Director of the Waterbury Forum in Education and Cultural Studies. He moved to McMaster University in May 2004, where he currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest.), June 20, 2016, Interviewed by Brad Evans, "The Violence of Forgetting", http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/the-violence-of-forgetting.html?'r=0~~
72		-There is a growing culture of conformity and quietism on university campuses, made evident
73		-AND
74		-to reveal that false hope and use counterspeech to truly solve structural violence.
75		-
76		-
77		-===Contention 2 is Authoritarianism Overseas===
78		-
79		-
80		-====~~Economist 16~~ Restrictions on free speech allow authoritarian regimes to justify their own encroachments on civil liberties. If colleges openly prohibit forms of free speech, these violations will be found overseas in far worse forms. The Economist writes in 2016 ====
81		-~~Under Attack", "The Inconvenient Truth", http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21699909-curbs-free-speech-are-growing-tighter-it-time-speak-out-under-attack~~
82		-Intolerance among Western liberals also has wholly unintended consequences. Even despots know that locking
83		-AND
84		-and liberties by saying that the U.S. did so also.
85		-
86		-
87		-===Contention 3 – Economic Prosperity===
88		-
89		-
90		-====~~Millsap 16~~ Free speech is key to economic growth, especially in regards to innovation and U.S. competitiveness. Adam Millsap of US News notes in 2016 ====
91		-~~Adam Millsap of US News notes, 5-23-2016, "Free Speech Is Good for the Economy," US News and amp; World Report, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-23/free-speech-is-good-for-the-economy~~
92		-Commencement season is now underway, and President Barack Obama recently had the honor of speaking at Howard University. His speech touched on a variety of topics, including the troubling trend of colleges canceling speakers that some students and faculty find offensive. The president is right that people should engage with one another on the battlefield of ideas rather than try to silence those with whom they disagree. As many people have pointed out, this engagement is important for a well-functioning democracy. But what people may not realize is that it's critical for a well-functioning economy as well. New ideas and innovation are necessary for sustaining economic growth, and there's a large body of evidence that emphasizes the exchange of ideas as an important component of an innovative economy. The United States has been especially successful at fostering innovation and growth in the technology sector. Facebook's market capitalization alone is twice the size of all the large European tech giants combined. There's good reason to believe that America's economic prosperity in this rapidly changing sector is due to its commitment to the free exchange of ideas. The theory that ideas and innovation are crucial to economic growth is an old one. Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" is perhaps the best known explanation of the role that innovation plays in the economy. Schumpeter explained that competition requires firms to constantly innovate, since those that don't will quickly be replaced by those that do. Ultimately micro-level creative destruction helps drive macro-level economic growth. But not all countries have to be innovators in order to grow. From the 1950s until the mid-'80s the Solow growth model was the primary tool of economists who studied economic growth. One of its main predictions was that poorer countries would eventually catch up to, or converge with, rich countries. The intuitive reasoning behind the theory of convergence is that poor countries could simply imitate the technological innovation of rich countries and grow accordingly. Instead of spending time and resources reinventing the internal combustion engine, the airplane, antibiotics or the assembly line, all countries like China and India had to do was start using them. But while imitation is a viable method of generating economic growth when a country is lagging behind, it can't go on forever. Once a country reaches the economic frontier – where there are no longer any countries to imitate – only innovation and technological progress can generate additional growth. The United States has been on the frontier for at least a century and our economic growth is primarily powered by our ability to innovate. Innovation itself is often described as an output of a country – e.g. the United States "leads the world in innovation" – but this language obscures where innovation actually takes place. It happens locally; individuals, not countries, innovate. Engineers and scientists working for companies, laboratories and universities and people tinkering in their garage, shed or basement are the real drivers of innovation, and most of this innovation occurs in cities. The large amount of specialized knowledge in cities, along with the rapid dissemination of information, is what fosters innovation. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that a city's success is proportional to the ability of its residents to innovate and generate new ideas. Cities devoid of entrepreneurs who routinely generate new ideas will stagnate and decay. And stagnation at the local level inevitably leads to stagnation at the national level. Researchers routinely point out that the proximity of people in cities is one of the primary reasons most innovation occurs there, but the exact mechanism through which the transfer of knowledge and ideas takes place is often omitted. The assumption seems to be that simply putting a bunch of people together on the same city block will create innovation. But the actual communication part is a crucial input into the production of innovation. As economists Curtis Simon and Clark Nardinelli note in their study of the growth of English cities in the 19th and 20th centuries: "The creativity of the market economy – the increasing returns so important in modern growth theory – in large part arises from what happens when people with information get together and talk. The talk is necessary to turn information into productive knowledge." Since spreading ideas and information requires communication – people talking to one another, attending lectures and presentations, watching videos, etc. – it's likely that limiting speech, either formally or informally, would have pernicious effects on innovation and harm economic growth in the United States. Despite the robust protections of the First Amendment and Americans' long history of exercising their right to free speech, there are signs that a significant portion of society is questioning how far this right should extend. College students around the country are increasingly calling for limits on speech. Several colleges have cancelled speakers due to the vocal opposition of students and faculty, and some college administrations are beginning to favor safety and inclusivity over the free exchange of ideas. Even high schools are getting on board; after students at a Bronx high school recently threatened to walk out on former presidential candidate Ted Cruz, his appearance was cancelled. The combination of these incidents reveals that many of the next generation of teachers, politicians, government administrators and business people are ~~is~~ comfortable with suppressing speech they personally don't like. While it's true that speech that offends a large portion of the population, or that criticizes a specific group, is unlikely to be the type of speech that leads to innovation, this criticism in large part misses the point. ~~But~~ what matters is not whether restrictions on offensive, hurtful or "hate" speech harm innovation directly, but whether such restrictions significantly reduce the likelihood of engaging in conversation in general. It's hard to predict where a conversation will end up. While civilized people should try to be sensitive to others, the subjectivity of offensive speech makes it difficult to always say the "right" thing. If the penalty for saying the "wrong" thing is large enough, even a small probability of digressing to a sensitive topic can be enough to discourage conversation. Currently the United States is one of the most economically competitive countries in the world as well as the most supportive of free expression. I don't think this is a coincidence: America's unique commitment to free speech and the open exchange of ideas has given entrepreneurs in the United States a competitive advantage. Efforts to clamp down on speech at the local level for the sake of safety and inclusivity may seem largely benign at first. But over time a climate that is hostile to certain forms of speech can have a chilling effect on all speech. As an economic leader, we rely on the free exchange of ideas and information for the serendipitous discoveries that increase our standard of living, and because of this, the long-term costs of stifling speech are larger than commonly recognized.
93		-
94		-
95		-==== ~~Baumol 07~~ Furthermore, economic growth leads to more political freedom and democracy. William Baumol, a professor of Economics at New York University, writes in 2007,====
96		-~~William, NYU Professor of Economics, Good Capitalism. 2007. Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, 129-131~~
97		-Now, ask the question the other way around: does economic growth lead to
98		-AND
99		-. The odds in our view suggest that political rights eventually will follow.
100		-
101		-
102		-==== ~~Rummel 91~~ AND, Democracy is key to rights protections and reducing all forms of violence. R.J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, writes====
103		-~~Professor of Political Science @ University of Hawaii ~~R.J. Rummel, THE RULE OF LAW: TOWARDS ELIMINATING WAR AND DEMOCIDE, Speech given to the ABA National Security Conference on "The Rule of Law in United States Foreign Policy and the New World Order. Washington, D.C., October 10-11, 1991. pg. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ABA.SPEECH.HTM~~
104		-Democracy is the successful institutionalization of the forces, culture, and techniques of non
105		-AND
106		-urge a vote on the firm affirmation of this resolution. Thank you.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-03-05 01:42:11.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Any

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-13

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Quarry Lane Karavadi Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-JanFeb Squals AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Squals