Colleges and Universities should prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses

No rebuttals! Please keep it clean. I wish I could use more rounds, but this week is really busy. This arguments are from my case for an upcoming tournament. Arguments Hate speech bans are counter- productive More Speech is always better We cannot infringe on hate speech without providing grounds to ban legitimate opinions Clarifications: a. Fighting words: A term used by the supreme court referring to slurs whose sole use is to start a fight. b. Public expression: Simply expression that is public; Hate speech inside a dormitory room is not public expression. c. Free speech is an idea expressed in the first amendment of the US constitution as a guideline rule for the government. This means that if colleges feel that hate speech is something to be against, they as a private institution are free to ban it. 1. Observation 1- Hate speech and fighting words are two different things. The resolution states that the opposition must defend hate speech, not fighting words. 2. Observation 2- That said, many things defined as hate speech can be prosecuted under other laws, such as destruction of property, or trespassing. The action is what should be punished, not the feelings behind it. a. "In its 1992 decision in R. A. V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment. " Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws. " states to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Arguments: 3. Contention 1-Bans on hate speech fail in their purpose a. A (good) example of this is the University of Connecticut"s speech code. It named "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" as violations of its code. The ban was struck down in federal court. i. The problem with this ban is a number of things, but the big issue is how easily it would be to be prosecuted for violating such a ban. There are a few cases in which "inappropriately directed laughter" and "conspicuous exclusion from conversations and/or classroom discussions" would constitute hate speech. However, about 99% of the time, this is either a misunderstanding, or it has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religion, or any other group the excluded belongs to. b. Because speech codes need to be so broad, they are often too broad. As a result of being broad, they are very vague. i. A case concerning the University of Michigan"s speech code was thrown out by a federal judge because the code stated it banned language "that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual. " 4. Contention 2- More speech is ALWAYS better a. You should convince people they are wrong, don"t just tell them to shut their mouth; Counter- speech is better than a ban. People whose opinion has been banned can bottle up their anger and take it out on unsuspecting innocent people. i. The ideal solution would be to find the root cause of the hate speech and reason through it, not stifle one's beliefs. b. Teaches college/university students to respond to hate speech in real world. In the real world, people cannot prevent all hate speech, so it teaches students to prepare for real life. c. In an academic learning environment such as a college or university, we cannot ban arguments we disagree with. This also helps to form peoples beliefs. If all you hear for your whole life is, "Chocolate ice cream is great", how could you learn to love vanilla ice cream. d. The supreme court refuses to ban hate speech. In the case, Phelps vs. Snyder, the court ruled that the Westboro Baptist church had a right to protest homosexuality at a military funeral. 5. Contention 3- The same laws and principles used to protect all speech protect hate speech, therefore, we cannot infringe on hate speech without infringing on the right to protest or have any opinion a. "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next. " states an anonymous african american educator b. Infringing on hate speech could provide legitimate grounds to prosecute reasonable protesters Notice I am not supporting hate speech, only that the best way to help stop it would certainly not be to ban it.