NOTE: This download expired May 31, 2019. See message below.
Released: Filed Under: Expired
About "Public Safety"
This case requires you to win the definition of a right, and to hold that over your opponent. Your resolutional analysis is key. If you can prove that reporters do not have a legal entitlement to keep their sources confidential, you can with any negative round this year.
It’s good to keep in mind that the First Amendment has limits. You can say or not say pretty much whatever you like, but there are a few catches. One of those catches, which reporters have tried to skirt, is that you are required to disclose information if it is subpoenaed by a legitimate court through the proper channels. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. Reporters sometimes mix with some shady people, law enforcement has an interest in rounding up shady people, and so reporters should share relevant information with law enforcement, even if that means uncovering the identity of a source. That keeps the public safe
Your value is public safety, which is foundational, so you shouldn’t have to spend much time defending it. If your opponent uses something like free speech, remind the judge that you can’t speak freely when your dead. The same goes for values like an informed public (though that concept is important in this case), since it’s arguably more important to have a safe public than an informed public. If you can win the value clash, your case keeps the stronger ground.
The application for this case is tricky. It serves as an illustration of how reporters can be forced to reveal the identities of their sources. The issue is, even in the opinion that this application quotes from, the justice is adamant that in most situations, it is a right of journalists to maintain source confidentiality. If Affirmatives turn this against you, remember your resolutional analysis. It certainly doesn’t seem like reporters are able, or should be able, to claim legal protection against source disclosure. On the contrary, it seems as though there is a legal obligation, in some instances, for reporters to reveal the identities of their sources. That train of reasoning is where you hang your hat and winning that train of reasoning can win you rounds.
- Download the document with the button above. Study this release and get to know it well. File and print as necessary to prepare for your upcoming competition.
- This download is exclusively for Monument Members. Any use outside this membership is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law and violators will be prosecuted.
- As always, double check all claims, warrants, hyperlinks and the current news in case any changes have occurred that will affect your competition.
- Do you have questions about this download? Tap in your comment at the bottom of the page. The author, the site owner, or another member will most likely reply.
Permission & Usage
Click Here for complete information on permissions. All Membership content and Library Archives are proprietary intellectual content, so please respect our copyrights. Simply put, if you are not a Monument Member or a Library Access Owner you may not use it or share its content. If one partner of a debate team is a member and the other is not, the one who is a Monument Member must be the controller of the logins, downloads and incorporation of the Monument Membership material. Sharing logins is strictly prohibited, the only exception being from immediate family members within a single household.