Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-19 01:49:29.286
	1	+2017-02-19 01:49:29.0

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,27 @@
	1	+ANALYTICS
	2	+
	3	+Practical reflection is an inescapable aspect of agency. FERRERO:
	4	+Luca Ferrero (University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee) "Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency" Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. IV January 12th 2009 pp. 6-8
	5	+3.2 Agency is special AND closed under itself.15
	6	+Impacts: ANALYTICS
	7	+
	8	+ANALYTICS
	9	+
	10	+And- willing coercion is a contradiction in conception because you extend your own freedom while simultaneously undermining your ability to act in the first place. In order to prevent coercion individuals must submit to the omnilateral will. KANT:
	11	+Immanuel Kant (leading Kantian scholar) The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, trans. John Ladd. 1797. Indianapolis: Hackett Publsihing, 1999.
	12	+When I declare AND in a civil society.
	13	+
	14	+Thus, the standard is consistency with the omnilateral will. Prefer the standard: ANALYTICS
	15	+
	16	+Impact analysis: ANALYTICS B. We can’t be culpable for consequences—external forces determine them. HEGEL:
	17	+Hegel 20 George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel The Philosophy of Right 1820
	18	+The will has AND in the purpose.
	19	+
	20	+I contend that public entities have an obligation to restrict some constitutionally protected free speech.
	21	+
	22	+Speech acts that intend to incite revolution dissolve the authority of the sovereign and must be prohibited. VARDEN:
	23	+Varden 10 Helga Varden (Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois) "A Kantian Conception of Free Speech" May 22nd 2010 Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World Volume 3 of the series AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice pp 39-55 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10072F978-90-481-8999-1'4
	24	+To understand Kant’s AND a public crime (6: 331).
	25	+
	26	+And according to Cornell Law, the Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech is protected by the First Amendment so long as it does not indicate an “imminent” threat.
	27	+https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-19 01:49:30.976

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Andrew Perez

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Munster AM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Tom Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JF- Omnilateral Will NC

Tournament

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