Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

AC/NC for Round 3 First, her Calleros 95 card essentially shows that the admins in schools must default to gov. So actor in resolution is government. Value: Sure. Consequentialism. Is it moral to allow hate speech to go unrestricted? I'll explain further down why restrictions do work. .. Criterion: What is the goal in the aff world? Contention 1: Marketplace of ideas- TURN: Allowing bigoted speech doesn't contribute to our enlightenment in a marketplace of ideas, Hanlon 16: wearing blackface Halloween costumes to parties or vandalizing campus facilities with swastikas scrawled in feces or arguing that women would be better off if financially dependent on men are on the cusp of social enlightenment? Should colleges give their resources and platforms to low-value speakers even though students and their families pay us tens of thousands a year to guide them rigorously through the highest quality material on offer? No, of course they shouldn't. The Pro's misdiagnosis of the Con world shows that speech restricted by the Con doesn't actually benefit the Pro's "marketplace of ideas" world and means that the Pro's 1st contention is turned. Looking at the Strossen evidence that she seems so adamant about throughout Round 2, again, look towards the fact that the Pro misdiagnoses the Con world. I do not defend status quo restrictions like the Pro seems to show, rather defending a CP that goes relatively untouched (more explanation further). We can therefore disregard her entire attack through Contention 1. Looking to the counterspeech arg, TURN: more speech, but that means more hate speech and racism, Weberman 10. "More speech" is not a sufficient remedy to "pernicious" speech. Hate speech in fact runs counter to that goal of more speech, denying others on campus the chance of hearing the target's ideas. So, if the aff is so adamant about more speech and allowing the marketplace of ideas, then she runs into a double bind. Does she want the marketplace or the solvency for violence? Which will be chosen? Looking at Contention 2, she makes the argument that "Restricting constitutionally protected speech definitionally violates the Constitution. " TURN: Hate speech is Constitutionally protected speech, Carroll 15. It would be unconstitutional to ban someone from putting racial words on a picket sign at a protest, and with that caveat, the overwhelming understanding is that "hate speech" is constitutionally protected in the United States. Furthermore, TURN: Brown v Board of Education makes the case to regulate racist speech, Lawrence 90. The landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education is not a case we normally think of as a case about speech. As read most narrowly, the case is about the rights of black children to equal educational opportunity. But Brown can also be read more broadly to articulate a principle central to any substantive understanding of the equal protection clause, the foundation on which all anti-discrimination law rests. This is the principle of equal citizenship. Under that principle "every individual is presumptively entitled to be treated by the organized socirespected, responsible, and participating member. " Furthermore, it requires the affirmative disestablishment of societal practices that treat people as members of an inferior or dependent caste, as unworthy to participate in the larger community. The holding in Brown- that racially segregated schools violate the equal protection clause-reflects the fact that segregation amounts to a demeaning, caste creating practice. This evidence turns the Pro's claims that restrictions are unconstitutional. The 3rd Contention can be completely DROPPED because it is NON-UNIQUE. Court Clog happens for a litany of different reasons, not just because of speech violations. Just look towards claims against police officers on the matter of their Qualified Immunity. That on its own is enough to drop the Pro's entire 3rd contention. - Moving on to the NC. - Framework: She says that education outweighs justice. Two things: 1. It's just to give education, so justice outweighs, and 2. TURN: Hate speech obstructs ability of group members to benefit from equal educational opportunities, Kaplin 92. Pervasive patterns of hate speech, left unchecked, create a denial of equal educational opportunity. This denial provides the university with a compelling interest in intervening to re-establish conditions of equality. In fact, in Healy v. James, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that universities need not tolerate First Amendment activities that "substantially interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an education. " So, Con wins framework at this point in the debate because Pro can't even give education to its students. Furtermore, structural violence has everything to do with the debate. If the Pro can't solve for structural violence, then I'm afraid the Pro isn't solving for anything and doesn't give the judge a reason to vote Pro. At the very least, a vote for the Con is a vote for change. AT First Contention. Drop the argument. I've proved multiple times why counter speech or even more speech in general will only make the matter worse. AT Second Contention. She has no evidence supporting any of her claims, no for "more people engaging in it" or for "restrictions are worse than doing nothing". Again, she misdiagnoses the Con world. At no point to I take away 1st ammendment rights. I attempt to solve for violence better than she ever will, and that at least means you must VOTE CON. Furthermore, she says that 1st ammendment rights are absolutely necessary for education, and that restricting speech confounds structural violence. Absolutely not. She can't solve for structural violence while restrictions can. Again, VOTE CON. AT Third Contention. Her Northwestern evidence need statistics to actually be debated, so we can drop it. Again, the counterspeech argument can continue to be dropped, its been thoroughly refuted in both NC and NR. Racist insults are protected, looked towards my card above from Carroll 15 that confirms the constitutional protection of hate speech and insults. And I really appreciate the fact that the Pro opens the door with "perm do the neg". Yes. Yes we should. We should do the neg and Vote CON in today's debate. If not, drop the perm and just do the neg altogether. -- 1 OFF -- More speech isn"t a solution " prejudices are still too deep rooted. The notion that we can just "talk things out" ignores the effectiveness of racist ideology Tsesis 10 Just as responding does not solve the problem of workplace harassment, neither does counterspeech decrease the risk posed by advocacy groups committed to carrying out a campus campaign of group intimidation, exclusion, and discrimination. Expecting students at public universities to simply talk things out and convince those who intimidate them of the fallacy of their threatening words and behaviors fails to provide a procedurally cognizable way of seeking legal redress. The world community discounted after it understood the effectiveness of antisemitic Nazi propaganda, it also elevates harassment and intimidation to an equal plane with dialogue. AND Hate Speech silences important conversations Goshgarian 16 Anonymous vandals scrawl hate-filled graffiti outside a Jewish student center. Black students at a law school find unsigned fliers stuffed inside their lockers screaming that they do not belong there. The usual and preferred response""more speech""is unavailable to the victim. And talking back to aggressors is rarely an option. Hate speech is rarely an invitation to a conversation. More like a slap in the face, it reviles and silences. Point blank, if the Pro world continues to think that more speech will solve, the problems of violence will only get worse.