| ... |
... |
@@ -1,79
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====We determine what is moral through conversational interaction, frameworks must first seek to preserve the possibility of interaction before assuming any other moral statements==== |
| 2 |
|
-Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Springer Science and Business Media, Mar 14, 2013. |
| 3 |
|
-First, it should be noted that such a position assumes that at least the |
| 4 |
|
-AND |
| 5 |
|
-as valid insofar as he is able to make his proposal at all. |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
|
-====This human interaction requires tolerance==== |
| 9 |
|
-Tinder, Glenn. "In Defense of Pure Tolerance." Polity, vol. 6, no. 4, 1974, pp. 446–468. www.jstor.org/stable/3234026. |
| 10 |
|
-(3) Tolerance is so crucial to human relations that the risks it involves must be run. To develop this point I must call on the theory suggested in the first part of this essay-the idea that tolerance is the "primal setting at a distance" without which communication cannot occur. Tolerance, according to this view, is an opportunity for communication. How does this apply to the problem of the tension between tolerance and other values? Briefly, it implies that tolerance creates the possibility that whatever value is sought will become a subject of communication. For the sake of convenience I shall say that what tolerance does, in relation to every value to which it applies, is to establish~~es~~ a "margin of communality." It creates a possibility that the value will be attacked and defeated, but at the same time it creates a counter-possibility: that ~~the value~~ it will become a subject of common inquiry and understanding |
| 11 |
|
-I thus Value Communal Morality |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-====Community requires the recasting of tolerance and morality from individual to communal perspectives, failure to do so risks harmful imaginative communal ideals==== |
| 15 |
|
-Tinder, Glenn. "In Defense of Pure Tolerance." Polity, vol. 6, no. 4, 1974, pp. 446–468. www.jstor.org/stable/3234026. |
| 16 |
|
-Along these lines, it seems to me that tolerance can be recast as a |
| 17 |
|
-AND |
| 18 |
|
-avoided had communal man always, before all else, taken this first step |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-====As societies develop, diversity is inevitable, further emphasizing a need for tolerant citizens==== |
| 22 |
|
-Stangl Chapters seven and eight, finally, turn from the issue of toleration as a personal virtue to the related question of political toleration. In chapter seven, Fiala focuses on Mill's epistemological argument for tolerance, but seems to reject it in unrevised form. Agreeing with Waldron, and against Mill, Fiala worries that the argument depends upon the false assumption that belief cannot be coerced. What Mill should have said, Fiala claims, is not that it is impossible to coerce belief, but that we ought not to ~~coerce belief~~. A purely political argument for tolerance, however, can be found in pragmatic considerations. Thus, in chapter eight, Fiala draws on the work of Rawls to argue that tolerance can be justified merely on the pragmatic grounds that diversity in our views of the good is simply inevitable. If we are to avoid the horrors of sectarian wars and coercive state practices, then tolerance is, if nothing else, a practical necessity. |
| 23 |
|
-Thus the standard is respecting communal tolerance. |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
- |
| 26 |
|
-====First, Public colleges and universities in America should represent a marketplace of ideas ==== |
| 27 |
|
-Trama 11 |
| 28 |
|
-Former United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. once referred to America as |
| 29 |
|
-AND |
| 30 |
|
-strengthen the marketplace of ideas~~.~~ by allowing as much competition as possible. |
| 31 |
|
- |
| 32 |
|
- |
| 33 |
|
-====The marketplace of ideas works, the status quo proves==== |
| 34 |
|
-Rosenbloom 11 |
| 35 |
|
-Some college administrators seem to incorrectly believe that the only way to develop a " |
| 36 |
|
-AND |
| 37 |
|
-"green light" rating from FIRE for protecting speech rights on campus. |
| 38 |
|
- |
| 39 |
|
- |
| 40 |
|
-====Students need the ability to tolerate hate speech, and respond with constructive argumentation ==== |
| 41 |
|
-Stone 16 |
| 42 |
|
-First, there is the widespread tendency of students on college campuses these days to |
| 43 |
|
-AND |
| 44 |
|
-run undermine the very foundations of higher education and of democratic decision making. |
| 45 |
|
- |
| 46 |
|
- |
| 47 |
|
-====Blatantly harmful speech, such as racial slurs, can be solved through counter speech- this is empirically proven.==== |
| 48 |
|
-Davidson 16 |
| 49 |
|
-All experts agreed that negative speech creates awareness that surrounds a certain topic. They all noted that "good speech" surfaces to combat the "bad speech." Humphrey notes that, "We have seen a lot of students stand up and say that this isn't welcome in this community. It galvanized a movement that said we need to do better" (Appendix A). Den Otter notes something very similar, stating that, "I think any time that there's some kind 51 of racist incident on campus, people start talking about it. They're made more aware of it" (Appendix B). And Loving advocates for people to not just stand idly while hate speech is taking place around them, that, "If racial slurs were met with more conversation, evil councils being remedied by good councils, then how long would that atmosphere remain on campus?" (Appendix C). The research shows that these suggestions and statements are true, if history is used as an indicator. Various incidents that have occurred, such as the California Polytechnic State University College Republicans Free Speech Wall, the Crops House Incident and the Charlie Hebdo Attacks have created movements against the negative speech that took place. Many times when "bad speech" shows its face, there are people who use "good speech" to combat the issue. |
| 50 |
|
-This allows for students to A) become more tolerant of others and B) allow for civil discourse that proves most important to a tolerant college campus |
| 51 |
|
- |
| 52 |
|
- |
| 53 |
|
-====Free speech increases tolerance.==== |
| 54 |
|
-Gordon 2 |
| 55 |
|
-All ideas must be allowed to be expressed freely in order to serve ~~the |
| 56 |
|
-AND |
| 57 |
|
-them, defending them, understanding their justifications, and demonstrating their superiority. |
| 58 |
|
- |
| 59 |
|
- |
| 60 |
|
-====Censorship of student journalism is increasing at the worst possible time. Censorship discourages questioning the government. Schuman 12-8==== |
| 61 |
|
-(Rebecca, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html) |
| 62 |
|
-Well, here's some great news to cheer you up: The American student press |
| 63 |
|
-AND |
| 64 |
|
-an entire generation of fledgling journalists who've come up thinking censorship is acceptable. |
| 65 |
|
- |
| 66 |
|
- |
| 67 |
|
-====The legal justification for newspaper censorship is a 7th circuit decision that applied Hazelwood to universities-this allows unchecked arbitrary censorship by administrators. Goodman 05==== |
| 68 |
|
-( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.) |
| 69 |
|
-In contrast to many high school censorship incidents, public college administrators today are less |
| 70 |
|
-AND |
| 71 |
|
-censorship of college and university student newspapers to be the legacy of Hazelwood. |
| 72 |
|
- |
| 73 |
|
- |
| 74 |
|
-====Regulation of newspapers is a crucial precedent used to justify widespread campus censorship-it uniquely empowers and protects administrators to censor. ==== |
| 75 |
|
-Lukianoff 05 |
| 76 |
|
-(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners) |
| 77 |
|
-Commentators from across the political spectrum, while often disagreeing on the source, the |
| 78 |
|
-AND |
| 79 |
|
-in freedom, and will not even know when it is lost."20 |