| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,73 @@ |
|
1 |
+==Framework== |
|
2 |
+====I affirm Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.==== |
|
3 |
+====The value is morality because ought means a moral obligation.==== |
|
4 |
+====The resolution is a question of academic freedom. The present convolution around liberty has always been ambiguous and constantly challenged. In order to solve the moral problems in universities, we need to maximize academic freedom, thus the criterion is maximizing academic freedom.==== |
|
5 |
+**Demaske 2k16** ~~~~~~Demaske, Chris (2016). "Not Just A Nice Job Perk": Academic Freedom As A First Amendment Right, Democratic Communiqué, vol. 27. 2015/2016 pp. 31–53.~~~~~~ |
|
6 |
+Much as journalists frequently assert that they have a "right to know," scholars |
|
7 |
+AND |
|
8 |
+to argue for a more complex and constitutionally grounded conception of academic freedom. |
|
9 |
+====Free speech is a pre-requisite to any morality- without it self-realization is impossible. ==== |
|
10 |
+**Eberle 94** Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94 (Wake Forest LR, Winter) |
|
11 |
+The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free |
|
12 |
+AND |
|
13 |
+Accordingly, any suspicion or evidence of governmental censorship must be vigilantly investigated. |
|
14 |
+==Observation 1== |
|
15 |
+====Hate speech is not constitutionally protected: there are exceptions to the first amendment for harmful types of speech, I don't defend the non-restriction or protection of harmful speech==== |
|
16 |
+**Usccourts.gov** ~~~~~~United States Courts, xx-xx-xxxx, "What Does Free Speech Mean?," http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does~~~~~~ |
|
17 |
+Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite actions that would harm |
|
18 |
+AND |
|
19 |
+Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007) |
|
20 |
+====Thus if the negative says restrictions of hate speech are good, that doesn't mean anything since it is not protected speech and thus out of the purview of speech that the resolution makes me defend. They have to win that restrictions on constitutionally protected speech are good to win.==== |
|
21 |
+==Contention 1 is Academic Freedom== |
|
22 |
+====Universities can crack down even on students and professors with no explanation – this destroys critical thought and expression.==== |
|
23 |
+Fiorillo 15 (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/) |
|
24 |
+Last Thursday, at a rally initiated by the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee, PHL |
|
25 |
+AND |
|
26 |
+adjunct faculty member, and they think they can get rid of her." |
|
27 |
+====Public colleges and universities almost always win their cases and thus can get whoever they want punished. Even though by definition of the first amendment, scholars are protected, the court always interprets cases to favor institutions.==== |
|
28 |
+**UIUC Journal of Law 2k16** ~~~~~~University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "First Amendment offers scant protection for professors." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 May 2016. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509191016.htm~~~~~~ |
|
29 |
+A new study by a University of Illinois employment law expert determined that the First |
|
30 |
+AND |
|
31 |
+than what it is — a laboratory of thought, experimentation and speech.". |
|
32 |
+====Speech restrictions are an oppressive means to control thought production, and although they start with justified limits, admins can bend the rules to use those limits to silence any speech. Allowing for any restrictions leaves this opportunity open and we already know that the admins always win. This destroys student's potential to truly learn or create change. America has no future when colleges suppress thought.==== |
|
33 |
+**Wogulis 9 **~~~~~~Daniel Wogulis December 15, 2009, 12-15-2009, "On the Consequences of Oppressing Free Speech," FIRE, https://www.thefire.org/on-the-consequences-of-oppressing-free-speech/~~~~~~ |
|
34 |
+Since its inception, the United States of America has been the site of vicious |
|
35 |
+AND |
|
36 |
+to freely express themselves-in all places, and at all times. |
|
37 |
+====The solution is non-restriction and thus preservation of academic freedom, this is the gateway to philosophical thought and moral education itself. Only a blanket protection solves, individual instances don't get rid of the overarching idea that admins can do what they want.==== |
|
38 |
+**Demaske 2** ~~~~~~Demaske, Chris (2016). "Not Just A Nice Job Perk": Academic Freedom As A First Amendment Right, Democratic Communiqué, vol. 27. 2015/2016 pp. 31–53.~~~~~~ |
|
39 |
+Given the financial pressures on higher education, and the most recent U.S |
|
40 |
+AND |
|
41 |
+new category of speech should receive the utmost protection under the First Amendment. |
|
42 |
+==Contention 2 is Moral Necessity== |
|
43 |
+====Free speech facilitates the development of moral reasoning- restrictions should be rejected on face==== |
|
44 |
+**Dwyer 01** (Susan, Phil@Maryland, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2 ® Philosophia Press 2001) |
|
45 |
+Direct Nonconsequentialism Let us return to the central topic: free speech. From the |
|
46 |
+AND |
|
47 |
+free speech in one place, we strengthen (protect) it everywhere. |
|
48 |
+====Even consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact. ==== |
|
49 |
+**D'Souza 96** (Frances, Prof. Anthropology Oxford, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/19960425/droi/freedom_en.htm?textMode=on) |
|
50 |
+In the absence of freedom of expression which includes a free and independent media, |
|
51 |
+AND |
|
52 |
+is needed to re-inforce government policies and intentions at every turn. |
|
53 |
+==Contention 3 is Failure of Restriction== |
|
54 |
+====Restrictions of hate speech are part of a demand for progress that does nothing productive and only anger the masses. Universities become echo chambers where only some voices are sheltered. This creates no change and only hides the reality of America while simultaneously only creating backlash from other voices. Trump's election and its aftermath prove how we use restrictions to hide ourselves from the reality of other viewpoints.==== |
|
55 |
+**Kristof 16** ~~~~~~Nicholas Kristof, 12-10-2016, "The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-echo-chambers-on-campus.html?_r=0~~~~~~ |
|
56 |
+After Donald Trump's election, some universities echoed with primal howls. Faculty members canceled |
|
57 |
+AND |
|
58 |
+correcting that is for us liberals to embrace the diversity we supposedly champion. |
|
59 |
+====Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech. ==== |
|
60 |
+ACLU 16 ~~~~~~American Civil Liberties Union, Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~~~~~ |
|
61 |
+Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more |
|
62 |
+AND |
|
63 |
+, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. |
|
64 |
+====Hate speech does not correlate to violence and hate speech restrictions actually increase hate. Telling racists to stop talking only pushes the problem out of our sight while making racists more angry.==== |
|
65 |
+**Heinze 14 **Eric Heinze, Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans – and against them, Free Speech Debate, 3/31/14, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against-them |
|
66 |
+Here too, within the LSPD model, no statistically reliable causation from patterns of |
|
67 |
+AND |
|
68 |
+as hate groups routinely tailor their responses to the existing bans and penalties. |
|
69 |
+====Even if they win that restrictions are good, again that's not a reason to negate. Hate speech is not constitutionally protected since it threatens freedom and safety. Furthermore, the state shouldn't restrict speech, but rather fight back with arguments. This can actually create change whereas restricting free speech can undercut freedom itself and lead to backlash. ==== |
|
70 |
+**West 2k13** ~~~~~~Robin, 4-8-2013, "Coercion and Persuasion and Speech: A Comment on Corey Brettschneider's book, When the State Speaks, What Should it Say?," https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/04/coercion-and-persuasion-and-speech-a-comment-on-corey-brettschneidere28099s-book-when-the-state-speaks-what-should-it-say.html~~~~~~#more-73298~~~~~~ prof. Georgetown Law |
|
71 |
+The state should in effect counter hateful speech with argument – argument that those beliefs |
|
72 |
+AND |
|
73 |
+just a few questions regarding the overall project which might suggest friendly amendments. |