Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey y'all,

 

Has anyone run into the Banned Books affirmative? Someone is running it in my circuit and I was wondering if any of y'all had any ideas for possible unique/interesting/winning offcase positions. T will be a big one of course, but possible DA's are a bit less obvious. (At least to me).

 

Here's the plan:

-        The United States Federal Government should substantially curtail its surveillance and censorship of literature and publications in public universities and secondary schools. -        Enforcement is guaranteed by the Department of Education. We claim the right to fiat. Have any questions, just ask.

-        Durable fiat

-        This is will be passed through congress and then enforced by the doe

-        We are banning banned books and striking articles from school-funded publications unless they pass the Miller Test (which defines obscenity). The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:

-        Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

-        Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,

-        Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]

-        The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

 

Thanks,

Noah

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are there any *federally* banned books? AFAIK, most if not all book bannings happen locally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, the USFG doesn't really do bannings. The Miller test is the Supreme Court's standard, but I believe that it is interpreted locally, what with the "community standards" part of the definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, the USFG doesn't really do bannings. The Miller test is the Supreme Court's standard, but I believe that it is interpreted locally, what with the "community standards" part of the definition.

 

T - Its then.

 

Also, banning books isn't really surveillance.  The act of banning a book involves no information gathering, in and of itself.

 

Federalism DA + States CP actually works really well here.  They are uniquely expanding federal power by giving the Department of Education the power to regulate book banning decisions at the local level.  (I haven't actually seen a Federalism DA this year, but find a backfile).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Inherency. The Federal Government already applies the Miller test to public college and high school censorship through court decisions. This doesn't look any different from the SQ to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - Its then.

 

Also, banning books isn't really surveillance.  The act of banning a book involves no information gathering, in and of itself.

 

Federalism DA + States CP actually works really well here.  They are uniquely expanding federal power by giving the Department of Education the power to regulate book banning decisions at the local level.  (I haven't actually seen a Federalism DA this year, but find a backfile).

 

SOMEONE HAS TO LOOK UP THE ISBN NUMBER OF THE BOOK, AND HOLD THAT IN A DATABASE... THAT IS INFORMATION GATHERING 

 

FASCISM!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Inherency. The Federal Government already applies the Miller test to public college and high school censorship through court decisions. This doesn't look any different from the SQ to me.

I'm fairly sure that the AFF is saying that they are going to STOP using the Miller test, and instead have no form of book censorship whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure that the AFF is saying that they are going to STOP using the Miller test, and instead have no form of book censorship whatsoever.

If that were the case, there would be no need to put the Miller test in the plan. The plan certainly does my read that way: "We are banning banned books and striking articles from school-funded publications unless they pass the Miller Test (which defines obscenity). The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2]"

 

But if they say I'm CX that they remove censorship altogether, the child porn DA I heard this weekend seems applicable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were the case, there would be no need to put the Miller test in the plan. The plan certainly does my read that way: "We are banning banned books and striking articles from school-funded publications unless they pass the Miller Test (which defines obscenity). The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2]"

 

But if they say I'm CX that they remove censorship altogether, the child porn DA I heard this weekend seems applicable...

Child porn DA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child porn DA?

Well, they ran it as a Child Porn K that made no sense - saying that we need to reconceptualize the way we think about child porn because civil libertarians think of it as just another type of pornography, while it should be thought of as sexual abuse. This of course is just wrong (everyone thinks child porn is sexual abuse), doesn't link to any plan, and made no sense. But it could easily be turned into a DA against electronic surveillance type cases - U: Electronic surveillance used to investigate and stop child porn now; L: Plan prohibits surveillance necessary to catch child porn; I: preventing child sexual abuse outweighs all other impacts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they ran it as a Child Porn K that made no sense - saying that we need to reconceptualize the way we think about child porn because civil libertarians think of it as just another type of pornography, while it should be thought of as sexual abuse. This of course is just wrong (everyone thinks child porn is sexual abuse), doesn't link to any plan, and made no sense. But it could easily be turned into a DA against electronic surveillance type cases - U: Electronic surveillance used to investigate and stop child porn now; L: Plan prohibits surveillance necessary to catch child porn; I: preventing child sexual abuse outweighs all other impacts.

Ah, I may cut that if I have time, sounds simple and interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T its (State/local violation), T surveillance, State CP w/ Federalism and Politics (I'm sure the right-wing would hate this) as Net Benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...