Free Speech Zones Aff



Download 1.19 Mb.
Page13/30
Date28.05.2018
Size1.19 Mb.
#52035
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   30

Solvency Blocks




A2 Cooption Turn

  1. Just defense – movements don't exist now and dominant ideologies are strong –

  2. Movements won't get coopted – empirics prove that they can criticize the administration and traditional authority – that's Williams

Movements aren't coopted by the academy – they remain bottom-up even if faculty and staff participate


Kezar 11 [Adrianna Kezar (Professor for Higher Education, University of Southern California), Tricia Bertram Gallant, and Jaime Lester, "Everyday people making a difference on college campuses: the tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff," 2011] AZ

Theoretically, this study demonstrates the importance of the grassroots leadership literature and the tempered radical framework for understanding faculty and staff grassroots leadership. These frameworks are valuable lenses for interpreting the behavior and activities of these individuals on campuses and should be used in future studies. The few studies conducted have not drawn on any comprehensive conceptualization like the tempered radicals framework. In relationship to the grassroots leadership literature, the results of the study suggest that faculty and staff can create on-campus change, without positional authority, operate bottom up and challenge the status quo and dominant ways of thinking, operating as grassroots leaders. This study demonstrates that faculty and staff grassroots leaders can use many traditional grassroots techniques and modify them to an institutionalized setting. Faculty and staff leaders also customize the techniques to the type of institutionalized setting. We suggest that faculty and staff who wish to create change on their own campus consider using as many of these nine tactics as possible, keeping in mind those that best align with the particular institutional type and culture of their college or university. Many faculty and staff that we spoke with describe how it took them and their colleagues years to understand effective tactics for creating change, because they lacked knowledge about approaches to change from the bottom up that work. Trial and error, as they noted, was very time consuming and could sidetrack progress. All the information available on leadership is targeted to those in positions of authority and proved to be unhelpful to their work. Meyerson’s (2003) tempered radicals framework was also helpful to understanding faculty and staff grassroots leadership. First, it helped identify everyday leadership that is often ignored on campuses. We know when faculty or staff are involved in direct and overt activism, but are less aware of these more tempered efforts to create change. By engaging in a tempered grassroots leadership approach, grassroots faculty and staff leaders were able to fly under the radar and push forward changes. Oncampus grassroots leadership tactics can be grafted onto Meyerson’s continuum, from resisting quietly (most tempered) to organizing collective action (least tempered). For example, working through and with students, socializing new colleagues and including material within courses are ways in which faculty and staff quietly resist the status quo. Using tactics that would fall in the middle of the tempered continuum, faculty and staff got on important campus committees, influenced the hiring processes, had students present classroom assignments to the administration and offered public intellectual forums to openly persuade change. Finally, at the least tempered end of the continuum, faculty and staff occasionally stimulated curriculum changes, participated in student and staff protests and/or created public intellectual forums that directly addressed more controversial issues (such as white privilege). Faculty and staff also wrestled for years to identify when to use more or less tempered strategies, and others struggled to understand if tempered strategies could be effective. These faculty and staff may have worked in non-institutional settings or been student activists, and were drawn to radical tactics. Many faculty and staff tried less tempered approaches and experienced backlash. Understanding the importance of a continuum of strategies helped faculty and staff leaders to rethink their leadership approach and be more successful in meeting their goals. This study builds on the earlier literature on faculty and staff activism/leadership (for example, Astin and Leland 1991; Hart 2005, 2007, 2008; Theodore 1986). It identifies a much broader range of tactics than earlier studies that focus on only networks or mobilizing. The findings demonstrate a progression of tactics, that move groups from vision to consciousness raising to action. This study builds on earlier research in higher education by showing a range of connected tactics – not isolated sets of tactics – and demonstrates how each tactic is aligned with grassroots leadership goals. For example, faculty and staff create a vision for change through intellectual opportunities, classrooms and curricula, and professional development. Second, they raise consciousness through professional development, committee work and intellectual opportunities. Third, they form change networks and allies through established committees, intellectual opportunities, grants, hiring and professional development. Next, faculty and staff mobilize people and build coalitions of change agents by working with students and external stakeholders. Then they garner resources and support through grants and using data. And lastly, they persuade and partner by working with external groups, intellectual opportunities, grants and using data. This more coordinated and comprehensive picture helps provide more concrete advice for grassroots leaders. Instead of presenting one or two typologies or approaches (cooperative or confrontational) to creating change from the bottom up, this study suggests a much broader range of approaches (Hart 2008). Faculty and staff went back and forth between more and less confrontational and cooperative tactics over the lifetime of the change initiative. In addition, certain individuals within a group might be more confrontational while others are more cooperative. Some approaches were neither confrontational nor cooperative, and instead fell somewhere in the middle. Thus, the study suggests that any narrow typology of approaches is not capturing the breadth of tactics and strategies that are customized to the circumstance. The study identified how more than identity, but also institutional context, shapes approach (in terms of approaches that are more likely to be successful in certain institutional types), creating a greater understanding of the role context plays. The findings suggest change agents should pay attention to institutional culture and climate as they craft their strategy.

A2 ACLU Turn

Nonsense – only the college administration has the jurisdiction to call in police to break up a protest on campus – removing restrictions means they no longer call police in

Case outweighs – a few protests getting out of hand and being broken up don't outweigh the majority of protests not being broken up

Empirics disprove – prior to free speech zones, movements in the sixties and seventies weren't broken up every time

DAPL is irrelevant – it's not a college protest




A2 Private Colleges Solve

  1. Almost 7 million of students go to public colleges, while only 4 million go to private ones – outweighs on number

  2. The aff is key – even if protests occur at private colleges, they won't spill over to other colleges

A2 Squo Solves

[A2 PROTESTS NOW] Delgado indicates that students CAN act as catalysts for countering neoliberalism – even if they have the capability, it's being suppressed – they dropped Mitchell which says zoning crushes effective protest

[A2 SOCIAL MEDIA] 1. Social media doesn't create change without large-scale protests – people don't pay attention on Facebook to a dozen protesters in a 30 foot block.

2. Tweeting and petitions aren't enough to create the visibility needed – Kony 2012 proves that online movements aren't enough

[A2 OFF-CAMPUS] Protests on campus are key – the administration can simply ignore off-campus protests about unfair hiring standards or discrimination, but on-campus movements force them to deal with the problem

Extra Solvency

The First Amendment protects only public discourse


Weinstein 11 – James Weinstein, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University: 2011(PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AS THE CENTRAL VALUE OF AMERICAN FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE, Virginia Law Review Vol 97:3 p.3, Available at https://web.law.asu.edu/Portals/31/Weinstein_UVA_May_2011.pdf Accessed on 12/14/16)IG

As Professor Robert Post's pioneering work has demonstrated, this extremely rigorous protection applies primarily within the do- main of "public discourse." Public discourse consists of speech on matters of public concern, or, largely without respect to its subject matter, of expression in settings dedicated or essential to democratic self-governance, such as books, magazines, films, the internet, or in public forums such as the speaker's corner of the park. It is in this realm that the people-the ultimate governors in a democracy-can freely examine and discuss the rules, norms, and conditions that constitute society. Precisely because public discourse in the United States is so strongly protected, however, the realm dedicated to such expression cannot be conceived as covering the entire expanse of human expression. Just as it is imperative in a democracy to have a realm in which any idea, practice, or norm can be questioned as vituperatively as the speaker chooses, there must be other settings in which the government may efficiently carry out the results yielded by the democratic process. Accordingly, in set- tings dedicated to some purpose other than public discourse-such as those dedicated to effectuating government programs in the government workplace," to the administration of justice in the courtroom," or to instruction in public schools the government has far greater leeway to regulate the content of speech.



It is not just the content of the speech that determines whether the expression will be highly protected as public discourse, but also the setting or medium in which the expression occurs." In modern democratic societies, certain modes of communication form "a structural skeleton that is necessary, although not sufficient, for public discourse to serve the constitutional value of democracy”. For this reason, "it [is] assumed that if a medium [is] constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, each instance of the medium would also be protected." The importance of the medium in which a given instance of speech occurs to democratic self- governance is, in my view, the best explanation of why the Su- preme Court rigorously protects nudity in film and cable television-media that are in its view part of the "structural skeleton" of public discourse-but not in live performances by erotic dancers on the stage of a "strip club."

Constitutionally protected speech refers to expression that furthers democratic self-governance – presume that a type of speech isn't protected unless the neg proves it


Weinstein 11 – James Weinstein, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University: 2011(PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AS THE CENTRAL VALUE OF AMERICAN FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE, Virginia Law Review Vol 97:3 p.1-2, Available at https://web.law.asu.edu/Portals/31/Weinstein_UVA_May_2011.pdf Accessed on 12/14/16)IG

In this discussion I will defend the view that contemporary American free speech doctrine is best explained as assuring the opportunity for individuals to participate in the speech by which we govern ourselves. This democracy-based theory is both descriptively powerful and normatively attractive. Descriptively, no other theory provides nearly as good an explanation of the actual pattern of the Supreme Court's free speech decisions. Normatively, this theory is appealing because it is firmly rooted in a value to which virtually everyone in our society adheres. In addition, it properly confines the most rigorous speech protection to expression necessary to the legitimacy of the entire legal system. I. DESCRIPTIVE POWER To demonstrate the descriptive power of this theory, I will first describe the structure of contemporary free speech doctrine. I will then show how a theory based on the individual right to participate in the democratic process provides a remarkably cogent explanation of this structure. Contrary to a widely held view aptly dubbed the "all-inclusive" approach,' it is manifestly not the case that "all speech receives First Amendment protection unless it falls within certain narrow categories of expression . . . such as incitement of imminent illegal conduct, intentional libel, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and true threats."2 Nor is it true, as is also commonly sup- posed, that unless speech falls into one of these forlorn categories, any content regulation of this speech will be subject to "strict scrutiny." In addition to the well-known exceptions just mentioned, one need only consider the large range of speech regulated on account of its content, all without a hint of interference from the First Amendment, such as that regulated by securities, antitrust, labor, copyright, food and drug, and health and safety laws, together with the array of speech regulated by the common law of contract, negligence, and fraud, to quickly realize that there is a multitude of "exceptions" beyond the few recognized by the all-inclusive approach. Indeed, a more accurate snapshot of First Amendment protection is almost the photonegative of the all-inclusive approach: highly protected speech is the exception, with most other speech being regulable because of its content with no discernable First Amendment constraints or like commercial speech, sexually explicit but non-obscene speech, or speech in a nonpublic forum,' expression that receives some, but not the most rigorous, protection from content regulation.

Free speech zones and no protest zones infringe on protected speech and shut down impromptu uprising which disarms the most effective form of resistance and forces reform efforts to bend to the will of the established system


Mitchell 03 - Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse’s Maxwell School: 2003 (“The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced” Stanford Agora Vol. 4 p.36-37 Available at agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf Accessed on 12/11/16)IG

In the end, a federal judge upheld the city’s position, seeing no illegitimate abridgement of protesters’ rights in the City’s establishment of a no protest zone. The judge stated, plainly enough, that “free speech must sometimes bend to public safety.”150 In this case it had to bend for 50 blocks, and right out of downtown – even though in Madsen, the court had found a 36 foot exclusion zone to be reasonable but both a 300 foot zone in which approaching patrons and workers of clinics, and a 300 foot no-protest zone around residences of clinic workers to be too great a burden on free speech, ordering a much smaller no-protest bubble to be drawn.151 Given this sort of spatial specificity in the Supreme Court’s decision, it seems unlikely that such a large protest exclusion zone could withstand scrutiny.



But there is another issue at work too. The judge in Seattle supported the City’s contention that sanctioned protest was acceptable. The no-protest zone was necessary because of impromptu protests. But, of course, the very effectiveness of the Seattle protests was their (apparent) spontaneity.152 That is what caught the media’s – and the public’s – imagination; and that is what allowed for the massive upsurge of political debate, in the U.S. and around the world, that followed.

Perhaps, tactically, Seattle’s “mistake” was to not establish designated protest and no-protest zones in advance of the meetings. Such a move had been effective in the 1996 Democratic and Republican Conventions (and in earlier ones too). And in subsequent years and events it has become standard practice, as with the 2000 National Conventions, the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, and the World Economic Forum meeting in New York in February 2002, where protesters are kept out of certain areas by fences, barricades and a heavy police presence.153 In the case of the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, it was the protesters who were fenced off, with the City establishing an official “protest zone” in a fenced parking lot a considerable distance from the convention site.154 The rationale, of course, was “security,” a rationale backed by appeals to the authority of the Secret Service. The ACLU, among others, sued the city, eventually winning a decision that invalidated the city’s plans. The city was forced to establish a protest zone closer to the convention center, with the judge chiding the City of Los Angeles for failing to consider the First Amendment when it established the rules for protest and security around the event. “You can’t shut down the 1st Amendment about what might happen,” the judge said. “You can always theorize some awful scenario.”155 This victory should not be considered very large. Its effect, and the effect of other cases like it, has largely reduced the ACLU and other advocates of speech rights to arguing the fine points of geography, pouring over maps to determine just where protest may occur. Protesters are put entirely on the defensive, always seeking to justify why their voices should be heard and their actions seen, always having to make a claim that it is not unreasonable to assert that protest should be allowed in a place where those being protested against can actually hear it, and always having to “bend” their tactics – and their rights – to fit a legal regime that in every case sees protest subordinate to “the general order” (which, of course, really means the “established order”).



Download 1.19 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   30



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
defining characteristic
internet does