Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 2 | Opponent: na | Judge: na
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...the First¶ Amendment.37

Mutually Exclusive

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...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 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.
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 (feasible)
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 arguments...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...of free expression.

Hate speech 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...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. 

Unrestricted speech creates a chilling effect where people are terrified to speak out. This has the effect of creating less dialogue. This doesn’t apply to our case because we are implementing restrictions on hate speech, thus not having unrestricted speech. Ingber 84
Stanley Ingber professor of law at john jay college of criminal law, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: A LEGITIMIZING MYTH, Duke Law Review, February 1984 EE
The clear and...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...very little thinking.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Lynbrook CW | Judge: Panny Shan
Public Universities and colleges should establish restrictions on hate speech consistent with Byrne’s proposal. This includes restrictions on otherwise protected free speech. They will remove all other restrictions on protected free speech.  Byrne 91

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

This article examines...and informed judgment. 3

The counterplan establishes checks on reverse enforcement, chilling effect, and slippery slope. Byrne 91

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

Disciplinary rules are...and hurtful¶ ranting.

Hate speech degrades minorities, locking in the squo and ensuring their failure. Delgado 2k
Richard Delgado - Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U. California-Berkeley, 1974. “TOWARD A LEGAL REALIST VIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.” Harvard Law Review. January 2000. JJN
B. Hate Speech as...across large groups.

And hate speech primes society for genocide – multiple empirical examples prove. Tsesis 09
Tsesis, Alexander Loyola University Chicago School of Law. "Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy." (2009).
Permitting persons or...principles of democracy.

Contention 2: hate speech has to be limited. 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...of free expression.111

Hate speech 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...stigmatizing victim groups.

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. 

Unrestricted speech creates a chilling effect where people are terrified to speak out. This has the effect of creating less dialogue. This doesn’t apply to our case because we are implementing restrictions on hate speech, thus not having unrestricted speech. Ingber 84
Stanley Ingber professor of law at john jay college of criminal law, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: A LEGITIMIZING MYTH, Duke Law Review, February 1984 EE
The clear and...to established norms.