Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[39]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-07 16:00:50.466
	1	+2017-01-07 16:00:50.0

Caselist.CitesClass[39]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
	1	+CP text: AFF plan except in the instance of compelled content warnings on syllabi. To clarify, all constitutionally protected speech that is not a content warning on a syllabus will not be restricted
	2	+***A content warning is a “heads up” given before the possibly triggering content is discussed that allows the student to prepare***
	3	+Absence of content warnings risk the physical and emotional safety of everyone in the room. This is not the same thing as avoiding critical discussions, but is about protecting everyone’s ability to exist as full persons in the room.
	4	+Carter 15. Carter, Angela M. 2015. “Teaching with Trauma: Trigger Warnings, Feminism, and Disability Pedagogy” Disability Studies Quarterly. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/4652/3935/AD
	5	+Second, I reference the above descriptions not to define trauma or delineate the specifics of being triggered, but rather to say what trauma and being triggered arenot.9 As becomes clear in the descriptions above, experiences of re-traumatization or being triggered are not the same as being challenged outside of one's comfort zone, being reminded of a bad feeling, or having to sit with disturbing truths. I am attempting here to distinguish between trauma and injury. While the latter can indeed lead to the former, they are not one in the same. An injury can be healed10; redress can be given. To be triggered is to mentally and physically re-experience a past trauma in such an embodied manner that one's affective response literally takes over the ability to be present in one's bodymind. When this occurs, the triggered individuals often feel a complete loss of control and disassociation from the bodymind. This is not a state of injury, but rather a state of disability. Because others understand this lost of control and the other related affects as emotionally disproportionate, the traumatized individual is no longer seen as reliable, or as having the ability to "make sense." Margaret Price argues in Mad at School that individuals with mental disabilities are "rhetorically disabled" in instances where they are stripped of their "rhetoricity" or "the ability to be received as a valid human subject" (26). This is precisely what happens in instances of re-traumatization. Alongside other people with mental disabilities, when those of us who live with the affects of trauma became triggered, "we speak from positions that are assumed subhuman, even nonhuman, and therefore, when we speak, our words go unheeded" (Price 26). In these moments we may struggle to make sense of our bodyminds, but what is most disheartening is that we do this in a world that has so often already dismissed us.
	6	+
	7	+analytic
	8	+
	9	+The Constitution prevents any form of compelled speech in any instance.
	10	+Wooley et al 77. WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, ET AL. v. MAYNARDSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 430 U.S. 705 April 20, 1977Robert V. Johnson II, Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was David H. Souter, Attorney General.MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.- Warren Earl Burger was the 15th Chief Justice of the United Stateshttp://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wooley.html
	11	+***BRACKETS IN ORIGINAL***
	12	+We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v.Barnette (1943). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of "individual freedom of mind." The Court in Barnette was faced with a state statute which required public school students to participate in daily public ceremonies by honoring the flag both with words and traditional salute gestures. In overruling its prior decision in Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), the Court held that "a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may not be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution." Compelling the affirmative act of a flag salute involved a more serious infringement upon personal liberties than the passive act of carrying the state motto on a license plate, but the difference is essentially one of degree. Here, as in Barnette, we are faced with a state measure which forces an individual, as part of his daily life - indeed constantly while his automobile is in public view - to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable. In doing so, the State "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control." New Hampshire's statute in effect requires that appellees use their private property as a "mobile billboard" for the State's ideological message - or suffer a penalty, as Maynard already has. As a condition to driving an automobile - a virtual necessity for most Americans - the Maynards must display "Live Free or Die" to hundreds of people each day. The fact that most individuals agree with the thrust of New Hampshire's motto is not the test; most Americans also find the flag salute acceptable. The First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster, in the way New Hampshire commands, an idea they find morally objectionable.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-07 16:00:52.508

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tim Davies

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Pflugerville SA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+20

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Amodwala Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JanFeb - CP - Content Warnings

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Churchill