Changes for page Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:40

From version < 79.1 >
edited by Joshua Herrera
on 2017/01/28 21:07
To version < 108.1 >
edited by Joshua Herrera
on 2017/03/10 22:29
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

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[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@
1 -Interpretation: If the AFF argues that you drop the arg on theory and revaluate the aff under the interpretation, they must have their spikes on top of case.
2 -
3 -Plan Flaw: you say United States, not USFG- a landmass cannot implement them
4 -
5 -Interp: All theory spikes must be read at the top of the AC
6 -
7 -Interpretation. The affirmative cannot limit qualified immunity for only one specific instance of police acting badly, and defend the implementation of “the Ninth Circuit's decision on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act's applicability to arrest situations in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco”.
8 -
9 -Interpretation: The Aff must defend that legislative branches of the United States limit qualified immunity – they may not defend courts do it
10 -
11 -Interpretation: The affirmative must defend the U.S. Constitution
12 -
13 -Interpretation: If the aff reads evidence specifying what the role of the judge or ballot ought to be, they must have a text in the 1AC which clarifies what constitutes offense under their role of the judge / ballot, how to weigh offense under their paradigm, and provide definitions for terms of arts.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-28 21:01:04.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -16
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Interps
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
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[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -17
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-28 21:01:03.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -f
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 21:18:04.0
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.CitesClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
1 +analytics
2 +And, and a violation of freedom can’t be true since its a contradiction.
3 +Stephen Engstrom (PhD, Professor of Ethics at University of Pittsburg). “Universal Legislation As the Form of Practical Knowledge”. Pg. 19-20 RC
4 +“Given the preceding considerations, it’s a straightforward matter to see how a maxim of action that assaults the freedom of others with a view to furthering one’s own ends results in a contradiction when we attempt to will it as a universal law in accordance with the foregoing account of the formula of universal law. Such a maxim would lie in a practical judgment that deems it good on the whole to act to limit others’ outer freedom, and hence their self-sufficiency, their capacity to realize their ends, where doing so augments, or extends, one’s own outer freedom and so also one’s own self-sufficiency. 19In this passage, Kant mentions assaults on property as well as on freedom. But since property is a specific, socially instituted form of freedom, I have omitted mention of it to focus on the primitive case. Now on the interpretation we’ve been entertaining, applying the formula of universal law involves considering whether it’s possible for every person—every subject capable of practical judgment—to shares the practical judgment asserting the goodness of every person’s acting according to the maxim in question. Thus in the present case the application of the formula involves considering whether it’s possible for every person to deem good every person’s acting to limit others’ freedom, where practicable, with a view to augmenting their own freedom. Since here all persons are on the one hand deeming good both the limitation of others’ freedom and the extension of their own freedom, while on the other hand, insofar as they agree with the similar judgments of others, also deeming good the limitation of their own freedom and the extension of others’ freedom, they are all deeming good both the extension and the limitation of both their own and others’ freedom.”
5 +The standard is respecting freedom.
6 +analytics
7 +Kantianism justifies a system of free markets- we have the right to make inferior choices and businesspeople have a right to choose how they want to distribute their own goods. This also means nobody has to sell you a house either- there should be zero interference, positive or negative
8 +Jones 04 September 2004, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies;2004, Vol. 16 Issue 1/2, p65, http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/14576363/immanuel-kant-free-market-capitalist
9 +This essay argues that Kant's philosophy provides a justification for free markets. The myths about Kant are that he was a recluse, knew nothing about business, and that his epistemology divorced reason from reality, while his primary interest was metaphysics. Yet Kant's categorical imperative demands obedience even in the face of uncertainty about the external world. Adam Smith described this principle as the inward testimony of an impartial observer. Smith and Kant put individual decisions at the center of morality, but agreed that people have a tendency to make morally inferior chokes. Those who propose to regulate the economy are as troubled by this tendency as those they regulate. The self-sacrifice prescription is economically, psychologically, and morally unstable. In recommending market competition, Smith was unconsciously applying a Kantian formula. Market decisions are individual decisions. Individuals prefer to do business with those they trust: this is an incentive to honesty. A morality that depends upon incentives is imperfect but superior to a morality imposed by force.
10 +A right to housing requires coercion since it uses the property of others to take actions.
11 +Tanner 04 Michael Tanner “Is affordable housing a human right?” The CQ Researcher. June 2004. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2004061806
12 +Affordable housing for every American is a desirable goal for public policy. But not every good policy can be translated into questions of human rights. When properly defined, rights do not conflict. That is because rights are essentially negative in character. My exercise of my rights in no ways infringes on your exercise of your rights. Your only obligation is negative, to refrain from interfering with my exercise of rights. Thus, my right to speak freely requires no action on your part, takes nothing away from you. My right exists independent of you. Your only obligation is not to stop me from speaking. But the same is not true of a right to affordable housing. It would impose a positive obligation. In order for me to exercise my right, something must be taken away from you. That may be your property, directly through taxes, or indirectly through limits on what you can charge for rent. But in theory, my claim on you could go still further. Suppose there simply was not enough housing being built. If housing is a right, I would have the authority to conscript you to become a carpenter
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-09 20:22:48.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +g
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +g
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +22
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Mar-Apr Kant NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +State
Caselist.CitesClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@
1 +Counterplan Text: The United States should take a needs based approach to the right to housing.
2 +Competition:
3 +
4 +Textually competitive- I use a needs based approach instead of a rights based approach which is different from the text of the AC.
5 +2. Functional competition- the implication of a right is a demand in absolute instances, whereas the CP PICs out of the absolute claim- rather, we just give housing assistance based on circumstances.
6 +Only a needs-based approach can effectively solve neoliberal institutions. It’s empirically proven to be effective.
7 +Noonan 17, Jeff (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor), and Josie Watson (clinical nursing Instructor at the University of Windsor). "Against Housing: Homes as a Human Life Requirement." Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research 28 (2017).
8 +In these sorts of cases, democratic progress depends upon the mobilization of social forces against exclusionary rights to private property. In these cases, a different social morality is brought into play, the social morality of need-satisfaction. Where the structure of rights blocks access to needed resources, it becomes a means of legitimating objective harm. Since it allows the harms of need-deprivation to proceed unchecked, its own legitimacy comes into question. Its legitimacy is challenged by social movements which do not appeal to authorities or experts to satisfy their rights for them, but draw on their own social power to secure access to and control over the resources that they need to satisfy their own rights. This form of organizing is consistent with the master democratic norm of self-determination, and is, in fact, the only way that needs can be satisfied in an empowering, as opposed to paternalistic, way. To put this crucial point another way, only a needs-based social morality exposes the real problem with the capitalist value system: it subordinates the life-value of goods and services to their money-value. The basic life-value of any good is the contribution that it makes to the satisfaction of non-optional needs (McMurtry 1998: 164). When lifevalue is subordinated to money-value, people can be deprived of that which they need and the economy still judged good, because the basis of judgement is not the satisfaction of people’s life-requirements, but return on investment to the owners of capital. Such is the case with housing markets as currently constituted. Hundreds of thousands of people cannot afford homes, but if house prices are rising, the markets are judged good by those who profit from them. Occasionally (as with the Vancouver foreign buyers tax) governments will intervene to cool markets in order to prevent the emergence of bubbles and the deeper social problems they can cause, but this sort of regulation is distinct from a structural solution to the homelessness crisis.
9 +Rights based approaches to housing are extremely vague and inefficient when held to particular instances- guts solvency and proves needs based approaches do more for the oppressed.
10 +Noonan 17, Jeff (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor), and Josie Watson (clinical nursing Instructor at the University of Windsor). "Against Housing: Homes as a Human Life Requirement." Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research 28 (2017).
11 + The Universal Declaration asserts that housing is a right, but it does not further define the conditions that count as satisfying that right. All rights-statements tend to be programmatic and abstract. A discussion of human life-requirements, by contrast, cannot be carried out without reflection on the nature of the life that has the requirements. In other words, it is never enough to assert that “x is a life-requirement,” one must always unpack the life-value of x in relation to human life to explain just what it is that x contributes to life which, if absent, would cause harm. We tried to provide this complex unpacking in the case of the need for homes in Section One. If we content ourselves with the assertion that ‘housing is a right,’ it remains an open question what is required to satisfy the right. Does any sort of ‘roof over one’s head’ constitute satisfaction of the right? Are the rights of social assistance recipients housed in motels while they await public housing violated? There is no straightforward answer to these questions if we focus only on the right to housing, because it does not explain why it is that human beings need housing, beyond the obvious that we require shelter. When the need deprived mobilize to explain just what they need, and demand the resources to satisfy that need through their own labour and intelligence, this problem disappears because they tell everyone exactly what they require to satisfy their need.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-10 22:27:21.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit Herrera Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Mar-Apr NBA CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA
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]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +22
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
Caselist.RoundClass[22]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-09 20:22:47.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +g
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +g
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +State
Caselist.RoundClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-10 22:27:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +TFA
Caselist.RoundClass[24]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-03-10 22:29:27.372
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +f

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)