[eDebate] First amendment topic?

Joe Patrice joepatrice
Sat Jun 3 15:20:23 CDT 2006

If you don't premise the Aff around curtail I do not see how the agent CP
doesn't win every round.  For example, Congress/Exec/State/locality abuses
First Amendment by _______ and Court should stop that.  CP, have that entity
quit doing _____, net benefit is any court linking DA.  That is not a risk
(or is an avoidable risk) the other way around, because Congress/etc. can't
curtail the First Amendment without the Court.

I believe the "it will affect other areas of free speech" argument is fair
debate.  I think I'm willing to debate that the effects of limiting free
speech is outweighed by the advantage of taking on the myth that "free
speech" is objective and free for all.  If anything I would worry that the
unfettered pro-free speech literature is not strong enough.

As for "cross burning and government corruption" being two cases, that
raises what I think is (and said during the meeting was) the fundamental
misconception about this topic -- even if the cases in question related to
those fact patterns, that is not what the Aff will be.  For example, I have
already found decent literature to run an intellectual property Aff off of
overruling a hate speech case.

Now that may make folks react the other way and think "wow then this is too
big."  It is big, but I believe that every "case" on the lists is equally or
close to as big as this area.  That means, as Lindsay put it during the
meeting, the First Amendment area is 4 to 8 times smaller than any of the
lists...and it's still huge.


On 6/3/06, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I love Joe Patrice, I love the topic committee, etc. but...
> Requiring affs to curtail first amendments rights is absurd even if you
> narrow it down to the most objectionable and repugnant manifestations of
> free expression.  The aff is not going to find any literature that says
> curtailing one form of expression WON'T undermine free expression as a
> whole
> (some defense is impossible to find in the lit, and even if you did, it
> would only be defense, impossible to win against terminal impacts to free
> expression).  Joe even admits that the neg gets all generic "first
> amendment
> good" literature.  And last I checked, didn't we agree that the negative
> is
> winning a whole bunch more debates already these days?
> I would eagerly choose the side of defending pornography (and reading
> feminist and other radical literature to do so) against the unscientific
> and
> reactionary arguments of the Dworkinites.  Perhaps those who think Dworkin
> won that argument or even held her own in the debate should read some
> evidence that's newer than 10-15 years old.  This debate has been settled
> but not in the direction Joe apparently leans.  Check out how Canada used
> a
> McKinnon-inspired anti-porn law to shut down a women's collective
> bookstore.
> Which leaves a couple of cases...cross burning and government corruption.
> Wow.  Fun year.
> stannard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060603/109f97fd/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list