Constitutionality NC

To negate means to deny the truth of, which implies a) that you presume neg absent offense, since the aff
has the proactive burden, and b) that indicting assumptions and permissibility negate since they deny the
resolutions truth by making it logically incoherent and not obligatory. Ought is a hypothetical imperative.
Johnson1

oughts [is] are distinguished from the moral ought in being based on a quite different kind of principle, one that
A hypothetical imperative [which] is a command that also applies to us in virtue of our having a
rational will, but not simply in virtue of this. It requires us to exercise our wills in a certain way given we have antecedently willed an end. A hypothetical imperative is thus a
command in a conditional form. But not any command in this f orm counts as a hypothetical imperative in Kant's sense. For instance, if
There are oughts other than our moral duties, but these
is the source of hypothetical imperatives.

you're happy and you know it, clap your hands! is a conditional command. But the antecedent conditions under which the command clap your hands applies to you does
not posit any end that you will, but consists rather of emotional and cognitive states you may or may not be in. Further, if you want pastrami, try the corner deli is also a
command in conditional form, but strictly speaking it too fails to be a hypothetical imperative in Kant's sense since this command does not apply to us in virtue of our willing some

willing an end involves more than desiring or wanting it; it requires the exercise of
on the pursuit of that end.

end, but only in virtue of our desiring or wanting an end. For Kant,

reason focusing

practical
and
oneself
Further, there is nothing irrational in failing to will means to what
one desires. An imperative that applied to us in virtue of our desiring some end would thus not be a hypothetical imperative of practical rationality in Kant's sense.

Prefer this interpretation of ought since categorical imperatives force us to argue from counterfactual premises about the state. We would have to assume that the state in fact could choose to abandon
some of its ends in order to act morally, but some ends of state action cant be given up. Moral arguments
are uneducational because any connection they have with reality is purely contingent and is not connected
directly to what the U.S. wills.
If the resolution is a moral question, the meta-ethic is constitutivism. Morality can only be
expressed in attributive adjectives. For example, if I say that something is good I implicitly make a
reference to its function. A good watch is only good if it fulfills its function of keeping time accurately. If
morality didnt function in this way it would be incoherent because it would be based in external
standards that we would have no control or knowledge of. This precludes all other ethical frameworks on
a normative level because normativity is just a search for a Good so this is the first way we can know
what is good because it functions on a definitional level.
And, the constitution the primary aim of the US government. The State Department 2:
It [The Constitution] establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights
and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the national government and the methods of
achieving them. Previously, the nation's leaders had established an alliance among the states under the Articles of Confederation. But the Congress created by the Articles lacked
the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems. After the states won independence in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), they faced all the problems of
peacetime government. The states had to enforce law and order, collect taxes, pay a large public debt, and regulate trade among themselves. They also had to deal with Indian
tribes and negotiate with other governments. Leading statesmen, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, began to discuss the need to create a strong national
government under a new constitution. Hamilton helped bring about a constitutional convention that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1787 to revise the Articles of

The
Constitution established not merely a league of states, but a government that exercised its authority directly over all
citizens. The Constitution [and] defines the powers delegated to the national government. In addition, it protects the powers
Confederation. But a majority of the delegates at the convention decided instead to write a new plan of government -- the Constitution of the United States.

reserved to the states and the rights of every individual.

Thus, the standard is consistency with the US constitution. Evaluate impacts back to my
framework first since constitutionality debates are the most educational since they allow us to understand
domestic law as it will apply later in our lives. This topic is an opportunity to study Supreme Court cases
that actually affect us on a daily basis, while every other LD topic rehashes irresolvable ethics debates.
Real world is key to education since is the only impact relevant post debate. Education is important since
it the reason schools fund debate so if debate ceased to be educational it would collapse as an activity.
Moreover, practice-dependent actions are constituted by the fact that they are aimed at reasons
internal to the practice, which they instance. Schapiro3:
Whereas summary rules presuppose the existence of a well-defined context of application, the establishment of a practice imposes a new conceptual and
normative structure on the context to which [it] they are to appl[ies]y. In this sense, a practice amounts to the specification
1

Johnson, Robert, "Kant's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/>.
2
"The Constitution of the United States of America." Almanac of Policy Issues. June 2004.
Web. <http://www.policyalmanac.org/government/archive/constitution.shtml>.

the
establishment of a practice transforms an expanse of grass into playing field, [and] bags
on the ground into bases, and individuals into occupants of determinate positions. Universal laws come to hold a priori, for example that three
of a new form of activity, along with a new order of status relations in which that activity makes sense.29 From the point of view of a participant,

strikes make an out, and that every inning has a top and a bottom. And within that new order people come to have special powers, such as the power to strike out, or to steal

[These are] constraints by

which any participant must abide in order to make her movements count as the moves she
intends them to be.
a base. The salient point for Rawls purposes is that there are constitutive constraints on the exercise of these new powers,

The people in the government and citizens of the country change constantly, so for the U.S. to be anything
at all, it must be constituted by its law. We can only conceptualize the US as an actor within the practice
of Constitutionality, so if it were obligated by some other norm to value something, then it wouldnt be
obligated as the U.S.

Schapiro, Tamar (Stanford University). Three Conceptions of Action in Moral Theory, Nos
35 (1):93117, 2001.

Contentions
I contend that the right to be forgotten violates the first amendment right of free speech. Mamo:
http://harvardcrcl.org/tradeoffs-in-the-right-to-be-forgotten/

The right to be forgotten creates a clear tension between two values that many of us concerned with civil liberties share: the protection
free speech and the protection of privacy rights on the Internet. On one level, this conflict points to a cultural and legal difference between the United States and
the European Union in terms of the relative valuation of free speech protections and privacy protections . The challenge on this level is how to reconcile
legitimate differences of valuation in a medium that easily spills over national borders. We have seen
of

several instances in which Internet companies have been forced to accommodate widely varying degrees of free speech protection, and perhaps the right to be forgotten can be forced into this
framework. The long-term effect may be to create stronger national boundaries on the Interneta move away from the idealism of its early days, but perhaps something that we should have
expected as the Internet matures into a space that is central to commercial, political, and social life.
The more interesting question, however, concerns the nature of forgetting as more information is put on digital media and made accessible from anywhere with an Internet connection.
The origins of the right to be forgotten are in European laws protecting those convicted of crimes, including a German law from 1973 that limits the publication of the names of criminals who
have completed their sentences. Such laws were intended to signal that serving a sentence erased a criminals debt to society, but have raised new problems with the availability of information on
the Internet.
Fundamentally, the accessibility and permanence of personal information on the Internet creates an unprecedented shift in an individuals control over self-presentation.

Information deemed unflattering can stick around, as can more favorable information. The
right to be forgotten would give the individual control over self-presentation by creating
the power to order that personal information be erased. This goes beyond well beyond the passive
act of forgetting. To the extent that the right to be forgotten encompasses the right to
prevent others from speaking truthfully about oneself, it creates a clear conflict with basic
free speech protections.
Murillo continues:
https://www.academia.edu/8583508/The_right_to_be_forgotten_its_weaknesses_and_alternatives

The right to free speech is threatened when individuals or companies delete information even
when other people post them on the Internet. It may actually be information that somebody owned and wrote,
which may be embarrassing to the person being referred to and results in a request to
delete. To what extent should individuals have this right to ask others to delete information
about them that they do not control? This is becoming a bigger issue when it is so easy to create and distribute content and with those who feel entitled
to do this as a result of the right to be forgotten directive. (Rosen, 2011) illustrates this point by indicating that some celebrities may demand potentially unflattering or damaging information
about them be deleted, such as when someone decides to run for public office.

Such deletions may undermine democracy.

And, this constitutional right extends online as the internet was meant to be an open forum. Kharpal:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102069982#.

the world has a "problem

with data disappearing" and the right to be forgotten ruling would make it worse.
"The idea that information which is true should be expunged for the public record is
frightening," Berners-Lee told journalists at the IP Expo Europe in London.
The inventor said that the rule is "draconian" when people request information that is true about them
to be taken down, adding that soon, many news articles which are factual could be wiped off the
web.
Tim Berners-Lee, the man who invented the World Wide Web in 1989 while working at the Swiss particle laboratory CERN, said

Google has received 140,000 individual requests for data to be removed which accounts for about half a million links.

an open internet had allowed him to create the World Wide Web and "net neutrality"
must be maintained to help future inventions. Net neutrality means Internet service
providers should treat traffic equally without blocking or discriminating against
competitors' websites or services.
Berners-Lee added that

"We have to keep fighting for net neutrality and keeping the internet as a platform without an attitude, a platform without a center," he said.

Next, SCOTUS agrees in NY Times v. Sullivan:

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/new-york-times-vsullivan-1964/

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. In order to prove libel [the
victim], a public official must show that the[y] newsp
aper acted with actual malicethat is,
with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for truth. The Court asserted
Americas profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues

should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. Free and open debate about the conduct of
public officials, the Court reasoned, was more important than occasional, honest factual
errors that might hurt or damage officials reputations.
And, if the UN matters, it also errs on the side of free speech:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
civilrights.org clarifies civil rights:
http://www.civilrights.org/enforcement/

Civil rights laws, once enacted by Congress, are meaningful only if they are duly enforced by the executive branch [and]
various federal departments, agencies, and commissions are charged with investigating civil rights violations, redressing instances
of discrimination, and providing guidance to individuals and businesses about their rights and responsibilities under the law. It's important that the individuals selected
to lead these departments and agencies -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- are committed to fair and
impartial enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws.
But, the right to be forgotten places the responsibility of censorship on search engines. Thus, the
Aff cannot functionally be a civil right. Thus, you negate on face because it cannot be a civil
right. Solon 14:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-blog

This decision is a ridiculous one that threatens to censor

entire swathes of the web. First of all, the landmark ruling states that search engines are
responsible for policing search results even though the information is published by third
parties. While I don't feel particularly sorry for Google, this is a major additional administrative burden that
requires case-by-case attention and I'd hazard to say [is]completely unenforceable. Imagine if everyone
in Europe decided they didn't like a photo of them online or some report from more than 15 years ago. What
On the face of it, the right to be forgotten may seem fairly uncontroversial. But don't be fooled.

about cached versions? Or web archives? Will the Wayback Machine have to delete the offending content? The repercussions of this ruling extend well beyond Google: to all other web
intermediaries.