Tournament: WC | Round: 2 | Opponent: DelMar | Judge: idk

Churchill Neg

Theory

The Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law…. Abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, or of the right of the people…". The only exception made has been "fighting words", a phrase which directly describes an illegal and harmful action occurring to a person or peoples.

Thus the interpretation: The Affirmative must defend allowing all Constitutionally protected speech

Violation – The Aff has incorrectly labeled hate speech as not Constitutionally protected and is thus abusing the resolution.

Standards

Predictable Limits – Allowing improperly defined words to be used expands the contents of the debate massively. Unfairly creates aff advantage because the Neg can never be ready. The aff needs to defend all of the words protected under the Constitution or there's no point to the resolution

Voters

fairness is key to education and equitable, competitive debate. Rejecting the team in every instance is key to set a precedent.

I negate Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

First is the observation:

The word "any" in the resolution is defined as

1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:

According to Merriam-Webster's

This means that if I am able to prove that one or some instances of constitutionally protected speech ought to be restricted , I win the debate.

The word "ought" is

2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like):

This means that the neg only has to advocate on the moral preferability of an action, not the implementation.

The standard for today's round will be minimizing suffering.

Suffering is something that is ignored in traditional settings under the guise of whiteness. The debate space is key as a starting point of discussion for meaningful change.

Kateb 11 ~George. William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Emeritus; his field is political theory. "Human Dignity".. Copyright The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England. 2011. Pages at the end of card.~
Is it then, a sufficient defense of human rights to show that the tyrannical
AND
not human beings but something other or lesser. ~36-37~

Contention 1 is Hate Speech

First is Racism

HATE SPEECH IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES

Melissa Weberman, Law Clerk 11th Circuit, 2010, "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine," Ohio Northern University Law Review, 36 Ohio N.U.L. Rev. 553, p. 553-4
Colleges and universities, historically "Bastion~s~ of Freedom," n1 have
AND
speech policies may be permissibly drafted and whether they should exist at all.

RACIST SPEECH CAUSES HARM TO THE TARGET

John T. Bennett, US Army Captain-JAG Corps, 2016, "The Harm in Hate Speech: A Critique of the Empirical and Legal Bases of Hate Speech Regulation," Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Spring, 43 Hastings Const. L.Q. 445, p. 463
Mary Matsuda and Richard Delgado offer the structural argument that the impact of racist speech
AND
turn, is urgently advocated as a remedy for these various social problems.

RACIALLY INTIMIDATING SPEECH IS VIOLENT

Alexander Tsesis, Attorney, 2010, "Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes," Connecticut Law Review, December, 43 Conn. L. Rev. 617, p. 665-6
Allowing students or faculty members to intimidate others through hate symbols or expressions favors the
AND
meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence.

TOLERANCE OF HATE SPEECH PERPETUATES SOCIAL HARMS AND CREATES A WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY OF RACISM AND VIOLENCE

Catherine B. Johnson, J.D. Candidate, 2000, "Stopping Hate Without Stifling Speech: Re-Examining the Merits of Hate Speech Codes on University Campuses," Fordham Urban Law Journal, August, 27 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1821, p. 1846-7
Those who call for regulation of hate speech further contend that in allowing such messages
AND
n179 leaving them little opportunity to counter-attack the assaultive speech. n180

Next is Fan Speech

FAN SPEECH AT UNIVERSITY SPORTING EVENTS CAN BE VERY OFFENSIVE, INCLUDES HOMOPHOBIA AND HARRASSMENT

Christopher J. Kaufman, J.D. Candidate, 2009, "Unsportsmanlike Conduct: 15-yard Penalty and Loss of Free Speech in Public University Sports Stadium," University of Kansas Law Review, June, 57 Kan. L. Rev. 1235, p. 1239
The extent to which fan expression at collegiate sporting events has become profane, lewd
AND
in the stands when they chanted "whores" at his family. n27

Whiteness manifests itself in hate speech not as a passenger but as an assault. Words have the power to psychologically damage bodies, twisting their mentality into one of self-hatred. The creation of phobic objects through speech is without a doubt violent.

Oliver 2k4 ~Kelly. W. Alton Jones Chair in Philosophy at Vanderbilt University. Colonization of Psychic Space: A Psychoanalytic Social Theory of Oppression pg. 55-57~
The literary critics Kalpana Seshadri-Crooks and Juliet Flower MacCannell in different ways address
AND
Dehumanization" http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization)

Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. Restraints against aggression and violence begin to disappear. Not surprisingly, dehumanization increases the likelihood of violence and may cause a conflict to escalate out of control. Once a violence break over has occurred, it may seem even more acceptable for people to do things that they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before. Parties may come to believe that destruction of the other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one's opponent to simply disappear. This sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships between the conflicting parties, making it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives. Indeed, dehumanization often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. For example, in WWII, the dehumanization of the Jews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of people. Similar atrocities have occurred in Rwanda, Cambodia, and the former Yugoslavia.

Contention 2 is Solvency

Speech restrictions actively limit hate speech.
 Sutton '16 ~Sutton, Halley. "Report shows crime on campus down across the country." Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016): 9-9.~

A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.

Next

THE FACULTY HAVE INPUT INTO THE POLICIES OF THE UNIVERSITY – INSTITUTIONAL FOCUS DOES NOT DENY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Robert J. Tepper and Craig G. White, Lecturer and Professor-University of New Mexico, 2009, "Speak No Evil: Academic Freedom and the Application of Garcetti v Ceballos to Public University Faculty," Catholic University Law Review, Fall, 59 Cath. U.L. Rev. 125, p. 146
At the same time, declaring academic freedom an institutional right suggests a monolithic institution
AND
to make decisions affecting academic matters without building a consensus among the faculty.