Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: X | Judge: X
Phenomenal introspection shows that morality requires the maximization of well-being. Sinhababu:
Neil Sinhababu (Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore). “The epistemic argument for hedonism.” 2012. JY.
"Pleasure" here refers to the hedonic tone
AND
utilitarianism, not egoistic hedonism.

And, rules can be justified on utilitarian grounds when case-by-case calculations lead to worse outcomes. Rawls:
John Rawls, "Two Concepts of Rules," The Philosophical Review 64 (1955): 3-32.
Rules are pictured as defining a practice.
AND
the utilitarian principle.

Thus the standard is consistency rule utilitarianism, which means following the set of rules whose general application maximizes well-being.

The affirmative thesis is that any unconstitutional speech restrictions on public colleges weaken the norm of protecting free speech, thus violating the rule that maximizes benefits.

Inherency

Speech codes are prominent in the status quo. Burleigh 16:
Nina Burleigh (national politics correspondent at Newsweek). “The Battle Against ‘Hate Speech’ On College Campuses Gives Rise To A Generation That Hates Speech.” Newsweek. 5/26/16. JY.
More than half of America’s
AND
wetback in class while explaining its use as a pejorative.

And, speech codes that prohibit discriminatory speech are a restriction on protected speech. FIRE:
Foundation for Individual Rights Education (FIRE was founded in 1999 by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate). State of the Law: Speech Codes. Accessed 12/8/16. JY.
In case after case, courts
AND
included in Appendix.

Thus, I advocate that public colleges and universities in the US ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech.

Contention One – Chilling Effect
Speech restrictions cause a chilling effect that is empirically verified and causes spillover to views on the First Amendment. Lukianoff 13:
Greg Lukianoff (attorney and president of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). “Speech Codes: Alive and Well, 10 years later.” Huffington Post. 10/15/13. JY.
In my 2012 book
AND
on this trajectory at their ultimate peril.

This chilling effect is powerful and threatens campus discourse. Friedersdorf 16:
Conor Friedersdorf. The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus. The Atlantic. 3/4/16. JY. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-glaring-evidence-that-free-speech-is-threatened-on-campus/471825/
To sum up: free speech on campus
AND
the future will thank them.

The right to free speech is indivisible and speech restrictions necessarily spill over. Friedersdorf 15:
Conor Friedersdorf. The Lessons of Bygone Free-Speech Fights. The Atlantic, 12/10/15. JY. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/what-student-activists-can-learn-from-bygone-free-speech-fights/419178/
But Professor Gale
AND
suggest they were correct.

Viewing hate speech as a harm exception creates perverse incentives and justifies broad restrictions, as there is no principled way to determine what speech is harmful. Epstein 16:
Richard Epstein (professor of law at NYU). “Free Speech and sexual harassment at Yale.” Newsweek. 10/27/16. JY.
But the harm
AND
using this broad and selective definition of harm.

Only a strong norm of content neutrality can protect marginalized voices.
Speech restrictions can only solve oppression if there is a public consensus against hate speech. But weakening the norm leads to worse oppression if public opinion shifts. Gates:
Henry Louis Gates (W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University). “Let Them Talk.” The New Republic. September 20, 1993. JY.
At first blush, this is
AND
norm of content-neutrality.

This is empirically confirmed- speech restrictions are implemented in racist ways. ACLU:
American Civil Liberties Union. “Hate speech on campus.” Accessed 12/14/16. JY.
Q: Aren't speech codes
AND
any persons, we'll be next." 

Contention Two – Impacts

Censorship undermines education and the search for truth. Free discourse is essential to knowledge generation. Speech restrictions come from epistemic arrogance. Pinker 15:
Steven Pinker (professor of psychology at Harvard). “Why free speech is fundamental.” Boston Globe. 1/27/15. JY.
MORE THAN two century
AND
some we hold today.

Finally, freedom of speech guards against tyranny and must be protected in every instance. Pinker 2:
Steven Pinker (professor of psychology at Harvard). “Why free speech is fundamental.” Boston Globe. 1/27/15. JY.
A third reason that free speech
AND
of opinion in a democracy.

American commitment to free speech sets an example to the world. Pinker 14:
Steven Pinker (professor of psychology at Harvard). “Three Reasons Free Speech Matters.” Foundation for Economic Education. 2014. JY.
It may seem outlandish
AND
a worrisome development.