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 JD Candidate Northwestern University School of Law 2008 BA 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 thesethe First Amendment

Contention 1 Dorms and residence halls are hot spots for harassment that students cant 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 court in U WM

Students should certainly be exposed to new ideas and ways of seeing the world But they also need somewhere safe to retreat 

Press Joshua "Teachers Leave Those Kids Alone  On Free Speech and Shouting Fiery Epithets in a Crowded Dormitory" (2008) Northwestern University Law Review 102 

This approach also  their student bodies

And our advocacy will not get overturned and can withstand scrutiny We tie anti-discrimination laws to speech codes in dorms 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 

Yet the argumentsbe 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 JD 1974 University of California Berkeley Jean Stefancic  Research Professor Seattle University School of Law MA 1989 University of San Francisco FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW 2009 httpwakeforestlawreviewcomwp-contentuploads201410DelgadoLawReview0109pdf

II OBSERVATION NUMBER TWOof free expression

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 BA Harvard College 1969 JD Yale University 1977 PhD Harvard University 1980 RACIST SPEECH DEMOCRACY AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT William and Mary Law Review 1991 httpscholarshiplawwmeducgiviewcontentcgiarticle=1924context=wmlr JJN

D Harm to thestigmatizing victim groups

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 andto established norms

Second dont listen to their arguments about a ban getting misapplied Tons of European countries already ban hate speech Theres 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 wealthvery little thinking