Changes for page Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 8 added, 8 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Analytic. 2 -The intent determines the action, so foreseen harms are irrelevant. 3 -Christine Korsgaard 14 (Professor at Harvard University) “How to be an Aristotelian Kantian Constitutivist.” 2014 4 - “First of all, no one thinks a wholly “external performance,” 5 -AND 6 -to at least intend to transmit the sandwich from my possession to yours.” 7 -Thus, the standard is consistency in the rational will. 8 -Qualified immunity prevents individuals from being held accountable when there is a good will, they don't know they're in violation of the law at the time. ZIPURSKY: 9 -Zipursky, Benjamin. “Reasonableness in and Out of Negligence Law.” No Date 10 -AND 11 -to pick out epistemic defensibility, as in the case of reasonable mistake. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-20 20:39:22.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -d - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dddd - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kant nc - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -d
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -The aff is just the myth of the free market—remove barriers and a “market place of ideas” will just magically show up. That fails to account for systemic oppression and marginalization of minorities. 2 -Sean McElwee 13 (researcher and writer based in New York. His work has been featured on Policyshop, Salon, The Atlantic and The Rolling Stone.). “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech”. Huffington Post, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/hate-speech-online_b_3620270.html RC 3 -It’s interesting to note how closely this idea resembles free market fundamentalism: simply get 4 -AND 5 -groups looking to bring their pet issue to the attention of Facebook’s censors.” 6 -Autonomy is not why we value free speech, rather it is only instrumentally valuable to promote good discourse, which autonomy ruins. 7 -Owen M. Fiss 86 (Sterling Professor at Yale Law School). “Free Speech and Social Structure”. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 1986. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2211andcontext=fss_papers RC 8 -From this perspective, the protection of CBS's autonomy through the no-content- 9 -AND 10 -one book or to include one course necessarily entails the exclusion of another. 11 -Don’t view this as free speech vs. censorship. Regulations can be used to ultimately enhance free speech. Not all voices are equal in the status quo—this prevents us from hearing all perspectives. 12 -Robert Amdur 99 reviews Owen M. Fiss, “The Irony of Free Speech”. Review by: Robert Amdur, the University of Chicago Press, 1999. RC 13 -As an alternative, Fiss suggests that we should see regulations on speech 14 -AND 15 -of ‘‘racists, pornographers, and the rich’’ (p. 17). - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-06 17:29:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -a - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -da - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uofh
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -International law banned hate speech 2 -Matsuda 89 Mari J. Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989 3 -The international community has chosen to outlaw racist hate propaganda. Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimi- nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states: Article 4 States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of per- sons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or pro- mote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incite- ment to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimi- nation, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organ- ized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organization or activities as an offence punishable by law; and (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.105 Under this treaty, states are required to criminalize racial hate messages. Prohibiting dissemination of ideas of racial superiority or hatred is not easily reconciled with American concepts of free speech. The Convention recognizes this conflict. Article 4 acknowledges the need for "due regard" for rights protected by the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights and by article 5 of the Convention - including the rights of freedom of speech, association, and conscience. Recognizing these conflicting values, and nonetheless concluding that the right to freedom from racist hate propaganda deserves affirm- ative recognition, represents the evolving international view. An American lawyer, trained in a tradition of liberal thought, would read article 4 and conclude immediately that it is unworkable. Acts of vio- lence, and perhaps imminent incitement to violence are properly pro- hibited, but the control of ideas is doomed to failure. This position was voiced continually in the debates'06 preceding adoption of the Convention, leading to the view that article 4 is both controversial and troublesome. 107 To those who struggled through early international attempts'08 to deal with racist propaganda, the competing values had a sense of ur- gency. 09 The imagery of both book burnings and swastikas was clear in their minds. 10 Hitler had banned ideas. He had also murdered six million Jews in the culmination of a campaign that had as a major theme the idea of racial superiority. While the causes of fascism are complex,11 the knowledge that anti-Semitic hate propaganda and the rise of Nazism were clearly connected guided development of the emerging international law on incitement to racial hatred. In 1959 and 1960, the United Nations faced an "outburst of anti- Semitic incidents in several parts of the world.""'2 The movement to implement the human rights goals of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration gained momentum as member states sought effective means of eliminating discrimination. 4 - 5 -US adherence to international law concerning hate speech is key to credibility in international human rights. 6 -Cohen 15 Tanya Cohen, "It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S." Thought Catalog, 5/1/2015 7 -Recent scandals involving right-wing hatemongers like Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, Bill Maher, and the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity have brought to light one of America’s biggest embarrassments: the fact that America remains the only country in the world without any legal protections against hate speech. In any other country, people like Phil Robertson and Donald Sterling would have been taken before a Human Rights Commission and subsequently fined and/or imprisoned and/or stripped of their right to public comment for making comments that incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities. But, in the US, such people are allowed to freely incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities with impunity, as the US lacks any legal protections against any forms of hate speech – even the most vile and extreme forms of hate speech remain completely legal in the so-called “land of the free”. Not only is this a violation of the most basic and fundamental human rights principles, but it’s also an explicit violation of legally-binding international human rights conventions. For many decades, human rights groups around the world – from Amnesty International to Human Rights First to the United Nations Human Rights Council – have told the United States that it needs to pass and enforce strong legal protections against hate speech in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As of 2015, the US is the only country in the world where hate speech remains completely legal. This is, in fact, a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) both mandate that all countries outlaw hate speech, including “propaganda for war” and the dissemination of any “ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. The ICCPR and ICERD are both legally-binding international human rights conventions, and all nations are required to uphold them in the fullest. By failing to prosecute hate speech, the US is explicitly and flippantly violating international human rights law. No other country would be allowed to get away with this, so why would the US? The United Nations has stated many times that international law has absolute authority. This is quite simply not optional. The US is required to outlaw hate speech. No other country would be able to get away with blatantly ignoring international human rights standards, so why should the US be able to? The US is every bit as required to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is. 8 - 9 -ILaw solves multiple scenarios for extinction—US compliance with ILaw shapes global ILaw compliance 10 -IEER 02 Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf 11 -The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the demands of states and individuals living within a global society with a deeply integrated world economy. In this global society, the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors, and individuals are not confined within borders, whether we look to greenhouse gas accumulations, nuclear testing, the danger of accidental nuclear war, or the vast massacres of civilians that have taken place over the course of the last hundred years and still continue. Multilateral agreements increasingly have been a primary instrument employed by states to meet extremely serious challenges of this kind, for several reasons. They clearly and publicly embody a set of universally applicable expectations, including prohibited and required practices and policies. In other words, they articulate global norms, such as the protection of human rights and the prohibitions of genocide and use of weapons of mass destruction. They establish predictability and accountability in addressing a given issue. States are able to accumulate expertise and confidence by participating in the structured system offered by a treaty. However, influential U.S. policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal system because they fear infringement on U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerous practical implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments by the United States that can be overridden based on U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat its legal obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. If the United States wants to require another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. 12 - 13 -The only alternative to I-Law is genocide and nuclear war. 14 -Shaw, Martin Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex. “The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations.” October 3, 2001. http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf 15 -The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline. We need to recognize three fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the non-Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries conviction—despite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-American left. The idea that global principles can and should be enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. This consciousness will become a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is a fact. International institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation with the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalized Western conglomerate. The success of the global-democratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national context—but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organizations and civil society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilize local states, rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratizing local states is not a separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war. Embedding global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held. It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratize it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid. As political intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state, as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the required restructuring of world institutions. What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal wars—perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges for students of international relations and politics, are intertwined. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 07:00:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -w - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -www - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ilaw da - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counterplan Text: Colleges in the United States should prohibit the distribution of revenge porn. 2 -Rennison and Addington 14 Callie Rennison (associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver) and Lynn Addington (associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC), "Violence Against College Women: A Review to Identify Limitations in Defining the Problem and Inform Future Research" Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. July 2014. Vol. 15, no. 3. Pgs. 159-169. http://tva.sagepub.com/content/15/3/159.full 3 -The current violence against college women literature has expanded knowledge about the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence occurring on campus. These findings, in turn, have been translated into policies designed to reduce this form of violence and assist victims. Additional work has considered the prevalence and characteristics of dating violence and stalking against college women and also has informed specific programmatic development on campuses. Despite these advances, our review of the literature identifies three important gaps that limit defining violence against college women and arguably inhibit future development in this area. The most critical gap or limitation is the lack of any assessment of the literature to consider the current approaches of how violence is defined and operationalized. This assessment would help identify whether behaviors are missing that should be included as well as promote a current and comprehensive understanding violence against college women. The two other limitations are not as directly related to defining violence but would assist in conducting such a reassessment. The second limitation concerns the need to provide a context for the victimization experiences of college women, especially the importance of comparing these experiences with those of young adult women who are not students. A third, and related, limitation concerns a need to consider how “college student” is defined and measured. The first limitation concerns the failure to explicitly define violence as it is used in the area of violence against college women. As a result, researchers tend to implicitly define violence against college women as synonymous with sexual violence and to a lesser extent dating violence and stalking. No effort has been made to take stock of the scope of this definition and reassess how well the construct has been operationalized. In addition, no explicit discussion has occurred with regard to whether using a criminal justice perspective or a public health perspective would assist in defining violence in this area. As a result, the violence against college women area has evolved to incorporate aspects of both perspectives but also has failed to fully embrace aspects of either. For example, if a criminal justice perspective was accepted, this view would encourage inclusion of other forms of violent crime such as robbery and nonsexual assaults that are currently absent from the literature. Similarly, if a public health perspective were utilized, this focus would expand the study to emerging forms of violence that may or may not be criminalized such as so-called revenge porn (or the posting of intimate and explicit photographs online) and other forms of online reputational harm as well as forms of criminal behavior that are committed by intimates such as cyberstalking or identity theft (which can generate significant emotional harm). 4 -Competition: 5 -The distribution of revenge pornography is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses. 6 -Goldberg 16 Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM" 7 -The regulation of revenge porn presents thorny First Amendment issues, even though the speech is considered both highly injurious and of low value.300 Some argue that revenge porn can be regulated as obscenity,301 but, like much pornography, sexually explicit speech that does not rise to the level of obscenity is still protected speech.302 Criminal statutes and torts based on the invasion of privacy and emotional distress caused by revenge porn compromise the freedom to distribute protected speech lawfully obtained. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a right for the media to publish even unlawfully obtained content, so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal conduct that produced the content.303 And in United States v. Stevens , the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for distributing speech depicting illegal acts, so long as the individuals did not perpetrate the underlying act.304 Revenge porn, as defined here, is both legally obtained and depicts a legal act. In the ultimate articulation of free speech consequentialism, Mary Anne Franks argues for criminalization of revenge porn because "some expressions of free speech are just considered so socially harmful and don't contribute any benefits to society."305 Yet this does not separate revenge porn from any number of categories of protected speech that may cause others emotional distress and are considered by some to pos- sess little value; this is nothing more than a call for judges to make whole- sale and retail judgments about the value and harms that flow from particular forms of speech. If revenge porn can be regulated, legislators should not target the victim's emotional distress or the invasion of pri- vacy, as these focal points threaten to undermine strong free speech pro- tections exceptional to America's free speech regime. 8 - 9 -Solvency: 10 -Restrictions work- they are key to forming a cultural shift in society. 11 -Citron 14 Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks"CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf 12 -A criminal law solution is essential to deter judgment-proof perpetrators. As attorney and revenge porn expert Erica Johnstone puts it, “even if people aren’t afraid of being sued because they have nothing to lose, they are afraid of being convicted of a crime because that shows up on their record forever.”68 Nonconsensual pornography’s rise is surely related to the fact that malicious actors have little incentive to refrain from such behavior. While some critics believe that existing criminal law adequately addresses nonconsensual pornography, this Part highlights how existing criminal law fails to address most cases of revenge porn. A. The Importance of Criminal Law Criminal law has long prohibited privacy invasions and certain violations of autonomy. Criminal law is essential to send the clear message to potential perpetrators that nonconsensual pornography inflicts grave privacy and autonomy harms that have real consequences and penalties.69 While we share general concerns about over-incarceration, rejecting the criminalization of serious harms is not the way to address those concerns. We are also sensitive to objections that criminalizing revenge porn might reinforce the harmful and erroneous perception that women should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexual activities, but maintain that recognizing and protecting sexual autonomy does exactly the opposite.70 A criminal law solution would send the message that individuals’ bodies (mostly female bodies) are their own and that society recognizes the grave harms that flow from turning individuals into objects of pornography without their consent. In this way, a criminal law approach will help us conceptualize the involuntary publication of someone’s sexually explicit images as a form of sexual assault. When sexual abuse is inflicted on an individual’s physical body, it is considered rape or sexual assault. The fact that nonconsensual pornography does not involve physical contact does not change the fact that it is a form of sexual abuse. Federal and state criminal laws regarding voyeurism demonstrate that physical contact is not necessary to cause great harm and suffering. Video voyeurism laws punish the nonconsensual recording of a person in a state of undress in places where individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. 71 Criminal laws prohibiting voyeurism rest on the commonly accepted assumption that observing a person in a state of undress or engaged in sexual activity without that person’s consent not only inflicts dignitary harms upon the individual observed, but also inflicts a social harm serious enough to warrant criminal prohibition and punishment. International criminal law provides precedent and perspective on this issue. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) have employed a definition of sexual violence that does not require physical contact. In both tribunals, forced nudity was found to be a form of sexual violence.72 In the Akayesu case, the ICTR found that “sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact.” 73 In the Furundzija case, the ICTY similarly found that international criminal law punishes not only rape, but also “all serious abuses of a sexual nature inflicted upon the physical and moral integrity of a person by means of coercion, threat of force or intimidation in a way that is degrading and humiliating for the victim’s dignity.”74 The legal and social condemnation of child pornography exemplifies our collective understanding that the production, viewing, and distribution of certain kinds of sexual images are harmful. 13 - 14 -Don't let them say free speech good; discursive objectification of women on college campuses takes away their speech. Turns case. 15 -Pinar 12 William F. Pinar (American educator, curriculum theorist and international studies scholar; has taught at LSU, Colgate, Columbia, and Ohio State), "The Gender of Violence on Campus" Published in Gendered Futures in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives for Change. Edited by Becky Ropers-Huilman. Feb 1, 2012. SUNY Press 16 -Fraternities demand conformity and solidarity. Conformity which is created by men bonding together against women (Hirsch, 1990). And against gay men. The sexual objectification of women remains a primary element of fraternity life; it is sometimes evident in fraternity serenades. In 1992, the UCLA-based feminist magazine Together (now called FEM) received an anonymous copy of the Phi Kappa Psi songbook in which one song— “SandM Man”—contained lyrics depicting female genital mutilation. At Cornell University, four male undergraduates posted on the Internet the “Top 75 reasons why women (bitches) should not have freedom of speech.” Reason #20: “This is my dick. I’m gonna fuck you. No more stupid questions” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 07:01:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -revenge porn - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uhh
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-28 21:07:24. 3661 +2017-01-28 21:07:24.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-20 20:39:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -d - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dddd - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -d
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-06 17:29:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -a - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uofh
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 07:00:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -w - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -www - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Semis - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -12 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 07:00:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -s - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uhh
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +18
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +The aff is just the myth of the free market—remove barriers and a “market place of ideas” will just magically show up. That fails to account for systemic oppression and marginalization of minorities. 2 +Sean McElwee 13 (researcher and writer based in New York. His work has been featured on Policyshop, Salon, The Atlantic and The Rolling Stone.). “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech”. Huffington Post, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/hate-speech-online_b_3620270.html RC 3 +It’s interesting to note how closely this idea resembles free market fundamentalism: simply get 4 +AND 5 +groups looking to bring their pet issue to the attention of Facebook’s censors.” 6 +Autonomy is not why we value free speech, rather it is only instrumentally valuable to promote good discourse, which autonomy ruins. 7 +Owen M. Fiss 86 (Sterling Professor at Yale Law School). “Free Speech and Social Structure”. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, 1986. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2211andcontext=fss_papers RC 8 +From this perspective, the protection of CBS's autonomy through the no-content- 9 +AND 10 +one book or to include one course necessarily entails the exclusion of another. 11 +Don’t view this as free speech vs. censorship. Regulations can be used to ultimately enhance free speech. Not all voices are equal in the status quo—this prevents us from hearing all perspectives. 12 +Robert Amdur 99 reviews Owen M. Fiss, “The Irony of Free Speech”. Review by: Robert Amdur, the University of Chicago Press, 1999. RC 13 +As an alternative, Fiss suggests that we should see regulations on speech 14 +AND 15 +of ‘‘racists, pornographers, and the rich’’ (p. 17). - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:10:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jan-Feb DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +International law banned hate speech 2 +Matsuda 89 Mari J. Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989 3 +The international community has chosen to outlaw racist hate propaganda. Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimi- nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states: Article 4 States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of per- sons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or pro- mote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incite- ment to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimi- nation, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organ- ized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organization or activities as an offence punishable by law; and (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.105 Under this treaty, states are required to criminalize racial hate messages. Prohibiting dissemination of ideas of racial superiority or hatred is not easily reconciled with American concepts of free speech. The Convention recognizes this conflict. Article 4 acknowledges the need for "due regard" for rights protected by the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights and by article 5 of the Convention - including the rights of freedom of speech, association, and conscience. Recognizing these conflicting values, and nonetheless concluding that the right to freedom from racist hate propaganda deserves affirm- ative recognition, represents the evolving international view. An American lawyer, trained in a tradition of liberal thought, would read article 4 and conclude immediately that it is unworkable. Acts of vio- lence, and perhaps imminent incitement to violence are properly pro- hibited, but the control of ideas is doomed to failure. This position was voiced continually in the debates'06 preceding adoption of the Convention, leading to the view that article 4 is both controversial and troublesome. 107 To those who struggled through early international attempts'08 to deal with racist propaganda, the competing values had a sense of ur- gency. 09 The imagery of both book burnings and swastikas was clear in their minds. 10 Hitler had banned ideas. He had also murdered six million Jews in the culmination of a campaign that had as a major theme the idea of racial superiority. While the causes of fascism are complex,11 the knowledge that anti-Semitic hate propaganda and the rise of Nazism were clearly connected guided development of the emerging international law on incitement to racial hatred. In 1959 and 1960, the United Nations faced an "outburst of anti- Semitic incidents in several parts of the world.""'2 The movement to implement the human rights goals of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration gained momentum as member states sought effective means of eliminating discrimination. 4 + 5 +US adherence to international law concerning hate speech is key to credibility in international human rights. 6 +Cohen 15 Tanya Cohen, "It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S." Thought Catalog, 5/1/2015 7 +Recent scandals involving right-wing hatemongers like Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, Bill Maher, and the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity have brought to light one of America’s biggest embarrassments: the fact that America remains the only country in the world without any legal protections against hate speech. In any other country, people like Phil Robertson and Donald Sterling would have been taken before a Human Rights Commission and subsequently fined and/or imprisoned and/or stripped of their right to public comment for making comments that incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities. But, in the US, such people are allowed to freely incite hatred and violence against vulnerable minorities with impunity, as the US lacks any legal protections against any forms of hate speech – even the most vile and extreme forms of hate speech remain completely legal in the so-called “land of the free”. Not only is this a violation of the most basic and fundamental human rights principles, but it’s also an explicit violation of legally-binding international human rights conventions. For many decades, human rights groups around the world – from Amnesty International to Human Rights First to the United Nations Human Rights Council – have told the United States that it needs to pass and enforce strong legal protections against hate speech in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As of 2015, the US is the only country in the world where hate speech remains completely legal. This is, in fact, a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) both mandate that all countries outlaw hate speech, including “propaganda for war” and the dissemination of any “ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. The ICCPR and ICERD are both legally-binding international human rights conventions, and all nations are required to uphold them in the fullest. By failing to prosecute hate speech, the US is explicitly and flippantly violating international human rights law. No other country would be allowed to get away with this, so why would the US? The United Nations has stated many times that international law has absolute authority. This is quite simply not optional. The US is required to outlaw hate speech. No other country would be able to get away with blatantly ignoring international human rights standards, so why should the US be able to? The US is every bit as required to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is. 8 + 9 +ILaw solves multiple scenarios for extinction—US compliance with ILaw shapes global ILaw compliance 10 +IEER 02 Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Rule of Power or Rule of Law? An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties. May 2002. http://www.ieer.org/reports/treaties/execsumm.pdf 11 +The evolution of international law since World War II is largely a response to the demands of states and individuals living within a global society with a deeply integrated world economy. In this global society, the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors, and individuals are not confined within borders, whether we look to greenhouse gas accumulations, nuclear testing, the danger of accidental nuclear war, or the vast massacres of civilians that have taken place over the course of the last hundred years and still continue. Multilateral agreements increasingly have been a primary instrument employed by states to meet extremely serious challenges of this kind, for several reasons. They clearly and publicly embody a set of universally applicable expectations, including prohibited and required practices and policies. In other words, they articulate global norms, such as the protection of human rights and the prohibitions of genocide and use of weapons of mass destruction. They establish predictability and accountability in addressing a given issue. States are able to accumulate expertise and confidence by participating in the structured system offered by a treaty. However, influential U.S. policymakers are resistant to the idea of a treaty-based international legal system because they fear infringement on U.S. sovereignty and they claim to lack confidence in compliance and enforcement mechanisms. This approach has dangerous practical implications for international cooperation and compliance with norms. U.S. treaty partners do not enter into treaties expecting that they are only political commitments by the United States that can be overridden based on U.S. interests. When a powerful and influential state like the United States is seen to treat its legal obligations as a matter of convenience or of national interest alone, other states will see this as a justification to relax or withdraw from their own commitments. If the United States wants to require another state to live up to its treaty obligations, it may find that the state has followed the U.S. example and opted out of compliance. 12 + 13 +The only alternative to I-Law is genocide and nuclear war. 14 +Shaw, Martin Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex. “The unfinished global revolution: intellectuals and the new politics of international relations.” October 3, 2001. http://www.martinshaw.org/unfinished.pdf 15 +The new politics of international relations require us, therefore, to go beyond the anti-imperialism of the intellectual left as well as of the semi-anarchist traditions of the academic discipline. We need to recognize three fundamental truths. First, in the twenty-first century people struggling for democratic liberties across the non-Western world are likely to make constant demands on our solidarity. Courageous academics, students and other intellectuals will be in the forefront of these movements. They deserve the unstinting support of intellectuals in the West. Second, the old international thinking in which democratic movements are seen as purely internal to states no longer carries conviction—despite the lingering nostalgia for it on both the American right and the anti-American left. The idea that global principles can and should be enforced worldwide is firmly established in the minds of hundreds of millions of people. This consciousness will become a powerful force in the coming decades. Third, global state-formation is a fact. International institutions are being extended, and (like it or not) they have a symbiotic relation with the major centre of state power, the increasingly internationalized Western conglomerate. The success of the global-democratic revolutionary wave depends first on how well it is consolidated in each national context—but second, on how thoroughly it is embedded in international networks of power, at the centre of which, inescapably, is the West. From these political fundamentals, strategic propositions can be derived. First, democratic movements cannot regard non-governmental organizations and civil society as ends in themselves. They must aim to civilize local states, rendering them open, accountable and pluralistic, and curtail the arbitrary and violent exercise of power. Second, democratizing local states is not a separate task from integrating them into global and often Western-centred networks. Reproducing isolated local centres of power carries with it classic dangers of states as centres of war. Embedding global norms and integrating new state centres with global institutional frameworks are essential to the control of violence. (To put this another way: the proliferation of purely national democracies is not a recipe for peace.) Third, while the global revolution cannot do without the West and the UN, neither can it rely on them unconditionally. We need these power networks, but we need to tame them too, to make their messy bureaucracies enormously more accountable and sensitive to the needs of society worldwide. This will involve the kind of ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ argued for by David Held. It will also require us to advance a global social-democratic agenda, to address the literally catastrophic scale of world social inequalities. This is not a separate problem: social and economic reform is an essential ingredient of alternatives to warlike and genocidal power; these feed off and reinforce corrupt and criminal political economies. Fourth, if we need the global-Western state, if we want to democratize it and make its institutions friendlier to global peace and justice, we cannot be indifferent to its strategic debates. It matters to develop international political interventions, legal institutions and robust peacekeeping as strategic alternatives to bombing our way through zones of crisis. It matters that international intervention supports pluralist structures, rather than ratifying Bosnia-style apartheid. As political intellectuals in the West, we need to have our eyes on the ball at our feet, but we also need to raise them to the horizon. We need to grasp the historic drama that is transforming worldwide relationships between people and state, as well as between state and state. We need to think about how the turbulence of the global revolution can be consolidated in democratic, pluralist, international networks of both social relations and state authority. We cannot be simply optimistic about this prospect. Sadly, it will require repeated violent political crises to push Western and other governments towards the required restructuring of world institutions. What I have outlined is a huge challenge; but the alternative is to see the global revolution splutter into partial defeat, or degenerate into new genocidal wars—perhaps even nuclear conflicts. The practical challenge for all concerned citizens, and the theoretical and analytical challenges for students of international relations and politics, are intertwined. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:15:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jan-Feb DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@ 1 +Analytic. 2 +The intent determines the action, so foreseen harms are irrelevant. 3 +Christine Korsgaard 14 (Professor at Harvard University) “How to be an Aristotelian Kantian Constitutivist.” 2014 4 + “First of all, no one thinks a wholly “external performance,” 5 +AND 6 +to at least intend to transmit the sandwich from my possession to yours.” 7 +Thus, the standard is consistency in the rational will. 8 +Qualified immunity prevents individuals from being held accountable when there is a good will, they don't know they're in violation of the law at the time. ZIPURSKY: 9 +Zipursky, Benjamin. “Reasonableness in and Out of Negligence Law.” No Date 10 +AND 11 +to pick out epistemic defensibility, as in the case of reasonable mistake. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:17:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nov-Dec Kant NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +I Forget
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,16 @@ 1 +Counterplan Text: Colleges in the United States should prohibit the distribution of revenge porn. 2 +Rennison and Addington 14 Callie Rennison (associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver) and Lynn Addington (associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC), "Violence Against College Women: A Review to Identify Limitations in Defining the Problem and Inform Future Research" Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. July 2014. Vol. 15, no. 3. Pgs. 159-169. http://tva.sagepub.com/content/15/3/159.full 3 +The current violence against college women literature has expanded knowledge about the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence occurring on campus. These findings, in turn, have been translated into policies designed to reduce this form of violence and assist victims. Additional work has considered the prevalence and characteristics of dating violence and stalking against college women and also has informed specific programmatic development on campuses. Despite these advances, our review of the literature identifies three important gaps that limit defining violence against college women and arguably inhibit future development in this area. The most critical gap or limitation is the lack of any assessment of the literature to consider the current approaches of how violence is defined and operationalized. This assessment would help identify whether behaviors are missing that should be included as well as promote a current and comprehensive understanding violence against college women. The two other limitations are not as directly related to defining violence but would assist in conducting such a reassessment. The second limitation concerns the need to provide a context for the victimization experiences of college women, especially the importance of comparing these experiences with those of young adult women who are not students. A third, and related, limitation concerns a need to consider how “college student” is defined and measured. The first limitation concerns the failure to explicitly define violence as it is used in the area of violence against college women. As a result, researchers tend to implicitly define violence against college women as synonymous with sexual violence and to a lesser extent dating violence and stalking. No effort has been made to take stock of the scope of this definition and reassess how well the construct has been operationalized. In addition, no explicit discussion has occurred with regard to whether using a criminal justice perspective or a public health perspective would assist in defining violence in this area. As a result, the violence against college women area has evolved to incorporate aspects of both perspectives but also has failed to fully embrace aspects of either. For example, if a criminal justice perspective was accepted, this view would encourage inclusion of other forms of violent crime such as robbery and nonsexual assaults that are currently absent from the literature. Similarly, if a public health perspective were utilized, this focus would expand the study to emerging forms of violence that may or may not be criminalized such as so-called revenge porn (or the posting of intimate and explicit photographs online) and other forms of online reputational harm as well as forms of criminal behavior that are committed by intimates such as cyberstalking or identity theft (which can generate significant emotional harm). 4 +Competition: 5 +The distribution of revenge pornography is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses. 6 +Goldberg 16 Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM" 7 +The regulation of revenge porn presents thorny First Amendment issues, even though the speech is considered both highly injurious and of low value.300 Some argue that revenge porn can be regulated as obscenity,301 but, like much pornography, sexually explicit speech that does not rise to the level of obscenity is still protected speech.302 Criminal statutes and torts based on the invasion of privacy and emotional distress caused by revenge porn compromise the freedom to distribute protected speech lawfully obtained. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a right for the media to publish even unlawfully obtained content, so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal conduct that produced the content.303 And in United States v. Stevens , the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for distributing speech depicting illegal acts, so long as the individuals did not perpetrate the underlying act.304 Revenge porn, as defined here, is both legally obtained and depicts a legal act. In the ultimate articulation of free speech consequentialism, Mary Anne Franks argues for criminalization of revenge porn because "some expressions of free speech are just considered so socially harmful and don't contribute any benefits to society."305 Yet this does not separate revenge porn from any number of categories of protected speech that may cause others emotional distress and are considered by some to pos- sess little value; this is nothing more than a call for judges to make whole- sale and retail judgments about the value and harms that flow from particular forms of speech. If revenge porn can be regulated, legislators should not target the victim's emotional distress or the invasion of pri- vacy, as these focal points threaten to undermine strong free speech pro- tections exceptional to America's free speech regime. 8 + 9 +Solvency: 10 +Restrictions work- they are key to forming a cultural shift in society. 11 +Citron 14 Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks"CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf 12 +A criminal law solution is essential to deter judgment-proof perpetrators. As attorney and revenge porn expert Erica Johnstone puts it, “even if people aren’t afraid of being sued because they have nothing to lose, they are afraid of being convicted of a crime because that shows up on their record forever.”68 Nonconsensual pornography’s rise is surely related to the fact that malicious actors have little incentive to refrain from such behavior. While some critics believe that existing criminal law adequately addresses nonconsensual pornography, this Part highlights how existing criminal law fails to address most cases of revenge porn. A. The Importance of Criminal Law Criminal law has long prohibited privacy invasions and certain violations of autonomy. Criminal law is essential to send the clear message to potential perpetrators that nonconsensual pornography inflicts grave privacy and autonomy harms that have real consequences and penalties.69 While we share general concerns about over-incarceration, rejecting the criminalization of serious harms is not the way to address those concerns. We are also sensitive to objections that criminalizing revenge porn might reinforce the harmful and erroneous perception that women should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexual activities, but maintain that recognizing and protecting sexual autonomy does exactly the opposite.70 A criminal law solution would send the message that individuals’ bodies (mostly female bodies) are their own and that society recognizes the grave harms that flow from turning individuals into objects of pornography without their consent. In this way, a criminal law approach will help us conceptualize the involuntary publication of someone’s sexually explicit images as a form of sexual assault. When sexual abuse is inflicted on an individual’s physical body, it is considered rape or sexual assault. The fact that nonconsensual pornography does not involve physical contact does not change the fact that it is a form of sexual abuse. Federal and state criminal laws regarding voyeurism demonstrate that physical contact is not necessary to cause great harm and suffering. Video voyeurism laws punish the nonconsensual recording of a person in a state of undress in places where individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. 71 Criminal laws prohibiting voyeurism rest on the commonly accepted assumption that observing a person in a state of undress or engaged in sexual activity without that person’s consent not only inflicts dignitary harms upon the individual observed, but also inflicts a social harm serious enough to warrant criminal prohibition and punishment. International criminal law provides precedent and perspective on this issue. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) have employed a definition of sexual violence that does not require physical contact. In both tribunals, forced nudity was found to be a form of sexual violence.72 In the Akayesu case, the ICTR found that “sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact.” 73 In the Furundzija case, the ICTY similarly found that international criminal law punishes not only rape, but also “all serious abuses of a sexual nature inflicted upon the physical and moral integrity of a person by means of coercion, threat of force or intimidation in a way that is degrading and humiliating for the victim’s dignity.”74 The legal and social condemnation of child pornography exemplifies our collective understanding that the production, viewing, and distribution of certain kinds of sexual images are harmful. 13 + 14 +Don't let them say free speech good; discursive objectification of women on college campuses takes away their speech. Turns case. 15 +Pinar 12 William F. Pinar (American educator, curriculum theorist and international studies scholar; has taught at LSU, Colgate, Columbia, and Ohio State), "The Gender of Violence on Campus" Published in Gendered Futures in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives for Change. Edited by Becky Ropers-Huilman. Feb 1, 2012. SUNY Press 16 +Fraternities demand conformity and solidarity. Conformity which is created by men bonding together against women (Hirsch, 1990). And against gay men. The sexual objectification of women remains a primary element of fraternity life; it is sometimes evident in fraternity serenades. In 1992, the UCLA-based feminist magazine Together (now called FEM) received an anonymous copy of the Phi Kappa Psi songbook in which one song— “SandM Man”—contained lyrics depicting female genital mutilation. At Cornell University, four male undergraduates posted on the Internet the “Top 75 reasons why women (bitches) should not have freedom of speech.” Reason #20: “This is my dick. I’m gonna fuck you. No more stupid questions” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:18:04.971 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jan-Feb CP Revenge Porn - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +uh
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +19 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:10:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +20 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:15:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:17:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +I Forget
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 21:18:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +On Tabroom - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +uh