[eDebate] First amendment topic?

Joe Patrice joepatrice
Sat Jun 3 12:41:38 CDT 2006

My last post didn't have a subject and that made it confusing.  I like the
First Amendment (and I think Kathryn and I were clear...we think this is
huge, but is still smaller than the lists which I think are boundless).

Going through these quickly:

"My concern with the first amendment topic is that there will be few good
cases that will be able to stand up to (a) rapid free speech good folks
and/or (b) distinguish counterplans, and that these cases will be at least
somewhat difficult to find in a very large literature base. As evidence, I
offer a few search results:"

-- I said this in the last post, but to review, the free speech good voice
is powerful, but I'm personally very compelled by the literature that says
that the harms of creating of sexualized images creating pornography (child
or otherwise) are being forced upon society under the guise of "freedom."
I'm compelled by other literature too, but that is the one that really
strikes me.  Others are equally passionate about the role of the First
Amendment as a shield for corruption in government.  I also found articles
that indicated that the hate speech cases set standards that jeopardize
intellectual property law...that's how broad this is.

-- Distinguish CP: I really don't know how well these will work in the
longterm.  What's the net benefit?  I'm pretty sure judicial activism links
are equally good for distinguishing.  The net benefit would have to be that
maintaining the same legal standard is good for some other case.  OK.  But I
think that's fair ground.

-- Searches: I think these searches don't work because people don't use
these terms even though they meet them.  When Andrea Dworkin attacks
pornography and argues that First Amendment law should not be interpreted to
cover pornography she is seeking a curtailment of SQ First Amendment
protections but she's not going to write the words "look we should curtail
free speech."  I think this is a T argument the Aff can win.

-- Why it's > lists: Let's talk Morrison.  It's ONE case on every list.  I
think the literature allows every domestic argument to be topical under
Morrison.  Articles exist that Morrison set a test that threatens almost all
domestic laws.  In a 40 second search I found that Morrison's standard
undermines or severely risks undermining gun control, abortion rights,
family law, domestic violence (obviously).  That was the first 3 articles in
a lexis search that brought up 450 articles.  Lindsay's post said this more
eloquently, but each of these lists allows Affs to do talk about anything
that a standard in each of these cases implicates.

I think people have the right to say "we want a topic that just opens up the
law and focuses on the role of the Court in society as the only stable
check" so I think it needs to be on the ballot.  But I want a topic with a
limited (hmph...I'm actually saying limited only in comparison to the lists)
subject matter basis that gives the Neg stable First Amendment Good ground
above and beyond courts ground.  I'm not convinced we'll be voting for the
First Amendment, but I'm pretty confident we will.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060603/1af31b41/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list