Tournament: Churchill | Round: 1 | Opponent: dzfnolnagf | Judge: dflgnl
AC
I affirm, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
Resolutional framing
Ought is defined by Merriam Webster as
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought
moral obligation
thus, the resolution mandates a discussion of morality.

Protected speech is defined by US Legal as
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/protected-speech/
Protected speech means speech that is protected from government regulation and censorship, depending upon the nature of the speech and the nature of regulation.
Since it's a question of morality the affirmative only has to defend whether the resolution
AND
it is their role to secure as well as maintain a learning space. 

Framework
The standard for today's round is maximizing human flourishing.
Moral actors have an obligation to minimize actions that inhibit human flourishing—this is critical to allow the full expression of values and promote justice.
Young '10 Iris Marion. Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, affiliated with the Center for Gender Studies and the Human Rights program @ UChicago. Responsibility for Justice, published by Oxford University Press in 2010. pp.137-9
Some philosophers reject the claim that the scope of obligations of justice extends only to
AND
can maximize their ability to act jointly and minimize violent conflict among them.

Rights AC
Not restricting free speech is crucial to protecting free speech outside the public university.
Chris Sanders, Alabama Law Review, 2006, 58 Ala L. Rev, Censorship 101: Anti-Hazelwood Laws and the Preservation of Free Speech at Colleges and Universities https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume2058/Issue201/sanders.pdf, p. 172-3
Because Hazelwood, intentionally or otherwise, greatly expanded secondary school officials' powers to censor
AND
" speech is nothing more than a distant memory from an earlier time.

Freedom of speech is essential to protect a marketplace of ideas that will enable social reform and protect against government oppression.
David E. Bernstein, Defending the First Amendment from Antidiscrimination Laws, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 223, 240-41 (2003).https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=489063 David E. Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law
The primary civil libertarian defense of freedom of expression from government suppression is that such
AND
government. Freedom of expression is therefore necessary for economic and cultural progress.

SPEECH CODES UNDERMINE THE UNIVERSITY'S MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
Azhar Majeed, Legal Fellow-Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2009, "Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes," The Georgetown Journal of Law Public Policy, 7 Geo. J.L.  Pub Pol'y 481, p. 484-5
Currently, however, speech codes are commonplace on college campuses, and they severely
AND
are also often enforced in such a manner as to censor protected expression.

PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES UNIQUELY ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC FREEDOM PROTECTION
Rory Thomas Gray, J.D. Candidate, 2006, "Academic Freedom on the Rack: Stretching Academic Freedom Beyond its Constitutional Limits in FAIR v Rumsfeld," Washington and Lee Law Review, Summer, 63 Wash. and Lee L. Rev. 1131, p. 1155-7
Constitutional academic freedom gains coherence as a First Amendment doctrine only in its application to
AND
regulating the expression of professors and students as arms of the state. n152

ACADEMIC FREEDOM CRITICAL– THE RESULT IS DOGMATISM AND THE END OF AMERICAN SOCIETY
Nicholas K. Tygesson, J.D. Candidate, 2013, "Cracking Open the Classroom Door: Developing a First Amendment Standard for Curricular Speech," Northwestern University Law Review, Summer, 107 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1917, p. 1936-7
In addition to free speech approaches, the concept of academic freedom is another potential
AND
doctrine by calling it a "special concern of the First Amendment." n136

Individual political liberty comes first — rejecting every instance of coercion is key to avoid governmental oppression in the forms of despotism, tyranny, and chaos.
Petro, 1974 Sylvester, Professor of Law at NYU, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480, http://www.ndtceda.c...0304/0783.html~~

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I
AND
every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Protecting constitutional rights comes first morally regardless of what framework used.
Daryl Levinson, professor of law at University of Virginia, Spring 2000 UC Law Review
Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation,
AND
better off, by whatever measure, if constitutional rights were never violated.