| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,11 @@ |
|
1 |
+Voting aff increases the amount of hate speech – |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+a. The plan legitimizes and legalizes hate speech which means people will take advantage of the lack of regulation and will start saying racist things because there is no fear of recourse and it is socially acceptable |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+b. Your solvency relies on hate speech increasing – the only way counter speech works is if we know who the racists are because they say racist things out loud, which means double bind – either (a) hate speech doesn’t increase and your solvency is denied and you vote negative on presumption because you need to justify a shift from the squo or (b) your solvency is true, and you increase hate speech |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+This causes psychological violence and internalized hatred. Even if speech codes don’t decrease hate speech, codes stop the impression that hate speech can go unpunished. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+Delgado and Stefacic 09, Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. “FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH.” WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf, |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE … to that result?97 |