January/February LD Topic

In this round I will be attacking my opponents arguments and making extensions where necessary, good debate so far Solon. I will say that since we didn't make official rules about what each round will be designated as, its okay that neg didn't respond to my arguments last round. If he fails to do this round, however, any arguments not addressed should be considered drops.Opponents case: I wholeheartedly accept the consequences of my "world" where sometimes people are allowed to express unpalatable views and do so in a similarly unpalatable way. I will extend my Contention one subpoint A, B, and D arguments here since they are all applicable, here's why: A) We cannot know what is objectively "good" or "bad" speech without making objective determinations that we are not suited to make since no one has a monopoly on truth. Neg's advocacy thusly stems from epistemic arrogance that hampers the search for truth, clear and identifiable harm there. Pinker articulates how all of the sources we use to acquire knowledge are erroneous, on that basis we cannot objectively identify harms, especially when the harm is entirely based on a reaction to something. B) Speech restrictions can never be narrowly tailored and thus necessarily spillover. I will hit on this more when addressing my opponents other arguments but there is no identifiable, objective harm associated with speech, that means that the offended get an unmitigated right to veto the speaker. Epstein argues that allowing the harm principle to apply to speech acts leads to a right of the offended to veto anything that offends them. This leads to spillover. The harm is an unclear status as to what our rights are which leads to tyranny. D) Speech restrictions against brother dean and those like him only work if there is a consensus against that type of speech, because once we allow the restriction of rights such restriction is subject to popular opinion in a republic. If the consensus turns against marginalized people and in favor of brother dean, will be turned against them to oppress them further. Gates argues that if the popular consensus turns against marginalized groups, they will be stripped of the only right they would have to respond to persecution, the right to free speech. Harm is the oppression of marginalized people which is a turn to the aff. Response to Speech is an action: I acknowledge that speech is an action, its just an action that ought to be given special protection when compared to other actions. Response to speech and harm: I am fine with banning the actions described in the first paragraph, such as setting individuals on fire. That is clearly not protected under the constitution and thus outside of the advocacy I am asked to take up. I don't accept my opponents rule (which looks something like a Utilitarian rule as described in my framework) because restricting any constitutionally protected speech necessarily results in the 5 harms I give in my constructive. This is because failing to conform to the affirmative thesis leads to empirically verified consequences that cause harms that outweigh the negative harms, I will discuss this more shortly. Essentially, all 5 of my harms stem from restricting any constitutionally protected speech, so negs advocacy has to inherently accept those harms even if his restrictions are narrowly tailored. Neg then goes on to claim that only speech that produces value should be protected per his Dworkin card, the issue is we can once again extend my Contention one subpoint A that any speech restriction extends from epistemic arrogance. To prove that certain speech has no value the neg would have to establish a realist epistemology that establishes some sort of objective value in the first place. He gives no criteria for what is or isn't objectively valuable and thus his first argument that speech with no value doesn't need protection is lost because he gives no criteria for what is or isn't valuable speech and doesn't justify a realist conception of value in the first place. My opponents logic here essentially says that if enough people react strongly to speech on college campuses, they get to veto that indivdual's right to speak. He claims later on that intuition tells us that certain speech acts (like yelling) aren't valuable but I will address that further down. Neg brings back the example of Brother Dean to illustrate how his rule would operate in the real world by saying that if it is empirically verifiable that Brother Dean's yelling causes harm, we ought to restrict that speech act. Here I am going to cross apply my spillover argument (subpoint B) because this sort of veto power based on emotional reactions to speech is exactly what Epstein condemns. I contend that if we can determine what speech ought to be restricted based on what my opponent deems to be a sufficient number of people reacting negatively to said speech, then we truly have no right to free speech at all. Free speech is supposed to protect us against the tyranny of the majority and allow us to express unpopular views however we choose. Partial permutation: I will point out that in extreme cases where expression does such things as "disturbing the peace" that there are constitutionally permitted restrictions of such speech. These are time, place, and manner restrictions that allow content neutral restrictions on speech. So if, for example, yelling near a classroom during class time resulted in disturbances to a learning environment, the university could impose a content neutral restriction that would make it so no one could protest during that time. This eliminates the efficacy of neg's arguments in a lot of ways because I could concede his arguments that certain speech-acts should be restricted within the context of content neutrality while still fulfilling my own advocacy. The only point of contention at this point would be if my opponent either A) Thought these restrictions should fall under a lower standard than intermediate scrutiny (that is how content neutral restrictions are evaluated now) or B) Thought these restrictions should be content based. Response to going deep--Restricting speech for the same reasons we have it Opponents argument regarding Citizens United is nontopical since it doesn't apply to speech on college campuses. I disagree with his arguments there but see no need to give it a long and in depth reply. It seems like the primary argument that emanates from that is his "deep appeal" argument. Here the Neg has two points where he states that we should restrict speech when it runs up against its purpose. The first is that speech is nonviolent and thus speech-acts that could result in or cause violence ought to be restricted. He brings up yelling and blocking freeways. I will extend my permutation argument for blocking freeways, and I will agree with him that yelling in certain areas can and ought to be restricted if it is a content neutral restriction. Content neutral restrictions that pass immediate scrutiny are constitutionally protected and thus fall under the affirmative advocacy. He then argues that universities should not be able to engage in political activities because money isn't speech (sort of bringing in FEC). I will agree with him that universities shouldn't be able to participate in political activities if they are publicly funded (those are the unversities specified in the resolution) and that does't violate the constitution. I disagree that organizations given funds shouldn't be allowed to participate in political activity so long as the university distributes the funds in a neutral and objective manner. Neg gives no warrant here as to why there is a quantifiable harm in allowing university organizations to engage in political activity. New sources http://law2.umkc.edu... http://www.vox.com... Back to you neg