Public colleges and universities have the right to restrict campus speech.

I'm glad to hear that my opponent and I agree that "federal crimes, such as hate speech and illegal information, should be tried and punished by the university and the law." I would, however, consider this to be a statement which necessarily implies that the motion is true; if the university should be allowed to restrict which is illegal, then there are cases where an academic institution should be allowed to restrict speech, and hence they have a right to do so. The motion was not defined- by my opponent when he suggested it or my myself, as pro, in the opening round- to mean that universities should *always* restrict speech. Clearly, my opponent and I would agree that there are certain kinds of speech which should not be restricted, but that does not in any way imply that universities do not have a right to restrict free speech; only that there are times when they shouldn't do so. It's like how if one is arrested, one has "a right to remain silent"- it means one can choose to do so if it is appropriate, but it in no way implies they would always be right to remain silent (and in many cases, such as if one is wrongfully arrested, one should not). While I feel Milo Yiannapoulos is a vile individual who should not be allowed to speak on university campuses (see source 1), I feel that this I do not need to justify this position in order for the motion to hold; con and I already agree that there are at least some contexts in which a university should be allowed to restrict speech. Hence, they have a right to do so. In the interests of brevity, then, I will keep my comments on this matter short, but I should point out that Yiannapoulos' speeches often involve hate speech. For instance, he outed a transgender woman in December of 2016 (see source 2), and this compromised her safety- violence against trans women is terrifyingly common (see source 3) and it is for that reason that a lot of them stay closeted. Yiannapoulos risked her safety by what he said. I would argue that this constitutes hate speech, but at the very least, it's reckless, irresponsible, dangerous, and should not be allowed on the campus of an academic institution. But once more, I'd like to emphasise- if you can think of a single case where an academic institution should be allowed to prevent someone from speaking on their campus, you necessarily agree with the motion, and should vote in favour of it. I agree with con "that a person with an argument that can be backed up by evidence, should be able to speak freely without being threatened or abused for doing so." but that is completely irrelevant to the motion- if it is ever appropriate for a university to restrict speech, the motion passes. Con is simply pointing to a single case where the university ought not to restrict speech. I'd also like to point out that Con has not responded to my point that universities should restrict speech which is demonstrably false, as failing to do so would waste the resources- and damage the reputation- of that university. So, my points all stand as they did at the end of round 1: 1) If a single circumstance can be pointed to where it is appropriate for an academic institution to restrict speech on their campus, the motion necessarily carries. 2) Demonstrably false information should be restricted, as it is a waste of resources and undermines the institution in which is is spread. 3) Hate speech should be restricted, as it undermines the safety and well-being of the individuals on the campus. 4) Illegal information should be restricted, because it is illegal. Hence, the motion should be carried. Therefore, please vote in favour of the motion. Sources: 1: http://www.patheos.com... 2: https://broadly.vice.com... 3: http://www.hrc.org...