Tournament: Harvard-Westlake Debates | Round: 2 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley KD | Judge: Sergio Martinez

MAN - Novice NC

Framing

The question of this debate is whether or not colleges occupy a special status that warrants limiting speech in some ways that we wouldn't normally limit speech in others. Our argument is not that we should strip away the right to free speech. Rather, the negative's argument is that college's occupy a unique intersection of people and purposes that justify certain time, place, manner restrictions that fit within restrictions allowed by the constitution that limit normally constitutionally protected speech.

Negative Case

Therefore, on the negative we advocate that speech normally protected by the constitution should be restricted in university and college dormitories, residence halls or any other location where students formally live. In particular they should reserve the right to regulate aggressive speech directed at students in a discriminatory manner. Press 08 Jd candidate at Northwestern

Press, Joshua ~J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2008; B.A., Emory University, 2004.~, "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
But despite these groups' fear that such policies represent governmental attempts to control or
AND
workplace, and therefore even more legitimate under the First Amendment.37

This advocacy is mutually exclusive with the affirmative's refusal of all restrictions because it creates a space for the university to limit what students would normally have free range to say. Even if it wasn't, there are several disadvantages to doing the affirmative that make our advocacy preferable by itself.

Contention 1: Dorms and residence halls are hot spots for harassment that students can't escape. Press 08

Press, Joshua, "Teachers, Leave Those Kids Alone – On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008). Northwestern University Law Review 102.
When considering the entire campus, the court's analysis in UWM seems sound in its
AND
, the greater the likelihood that protected speech will be unconstitutionally chilled."' 

Contention 2: hate speech has to be limited in the dorms. This type of speech does real violence that makes college unbearable. Delgado and Stefacic '09

Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. "FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH." WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf
II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE EVALUATION OF HARMS HAS BEEN INCOMPLETE One way
AND
at odds with the underlying rationales of a system of free expression.111

This destroys the effectiveness of the marketplace of ideas and makes deliberation and conversation impossible. Post '91

ROBERT C. POST - Professor of Law, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California at Berkeley. B.A., Harvard College, 1969; J.D., Yale University, 1977; Ph.D., Harvard University, 1980. "RACIST SPEECH, DEMOCRACY, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT." William and Mary Law Review. 1991. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1924andcontext=wmlr JJN
D. Harm to the Marketplace of Ideas A fourth theme in the current debate
AND
be expanded still further to encompass speech explicitly devaluing and stigmatizing victim groups.

Affirmative Case Overview

My opponent case relies on promoting speech for everyone. But, that is an ineffective starting point to promote quality of life and rights of people on campus. Instead, we need some regulation on the marketplace of ideas. Before addressing the specifics of their case we will isolate a few problems with their thesis.

First, unrestricted speech creates a chilling effect where people are terrified to speak out. This has the effect of creating less dialogue.  Inbger 84

Stanley Ingber, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: A LEGITIMIZING MYTH, Duke Law Review, February 1984 EE
The clear and present danger test presupposes that market imperfections sometimes give speakers an unacceptable
AND
debate is still in progress, then there is little threat to established norms

Second, don't listen to their arguments about a ban getting misapplied. Tons of European countries already ban hate speech. There's no spillover effect. Muravchik 10

Joshua Muravchik has been recognized by the Wall Street Journal as "maybe the most cogent and careful of the neoconservative writers on foreign policy." He is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies and formerly a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He has published more than three hundred articles on politics and international affairs, Free Speech and the Myth of the Slippery Slope, World Affairs Journal, October 15, 2010 EE
Moreover, a wealth of political history suggests that the slippery slope is a phantom
AND
bottom of which lies lots of freedom of thought but very little thinking.