Resolved: Public colleges in the U.S. ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

It would be great if we can run a LD style debate as I need to prepare for my qualifiers. When you are ready, please respond with your position and we can start shortly after.Roadmap:ACNC1AR2NR2ARI affirm Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Framework According to [American Heritage Dictionary], Speech is defined as “The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.” Public is defined as “Maintained for or used by the people or community” And according to Legal Definitions, constitutionally protected “refers to those basic protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The protection enshrined in the constitution are part of those protection enshrined in the Bill of Rights.” The value is Justice. My value criterion is abiding by the U.S. constitution. I prefer this standard for the following reasons. The constitution offers a guideline for demeanor without a proper set of rules, we would be in anarchy. Barnett ‘88 [Moreover, this assumption views legal precepts as distinct from and at least sometimes opposed to the requirements of justice. However, the analysis presented here offers a quite different picture of this relationship. Justice, at least in its first derivation, is extremely abstract and general. For justice to be brought to bear effectively on individual decision, specific legal precepts are needed to guide conduct. Such precepts are the necessary means by which just results or ends are to be achieved in practice, and they are also the means by which persons decide how to act justly so as to avoid a dispute that requires resolution. Most importantly, perhaps, this objection to the use of legal precepts assumes that persons deciding how to act or judges deciding how to resolve a dispute have access (independent of legal precepts) to a conception of justice that is specific enough to decide the outcomes of disputes.] The constitution protects all bodies; this includes minorities. OTPIC, 05’ [Usually, these mechanisms involve constitutional protections of rights of all citizens. Parliamentary systems, which give minority groups representation, rather than giving complete power to the group that wins 51% of the vote is also a way to increase the power of minority groups. Another important mechanism for protecting minority rights is the use of political subdivisions***.Here the idea is to divide the larger society into a number of highly homogeneous political subdivisions without significant minority groups. These divisions are then granted as much autonomy and home rule as possible. ] ***Here the idea is to divide the larger society into a number of highly homogeneous political subdivisions without significant minority groups. These divisions are then granted as much autonomy and home rule as possible. This framework acts as a side constraint because the constitution determines whether other actions can be performed or whether they violate it. Levinson, 00’ [Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, for we do not usually think of violations of constitutional rights in terms of cost-benefit analysis and efficiency. Quite the opposite, constitutional rights are most commonly conceived as deontological side-constraints that trump even utility-maximizing government action. Alternatively,constitutional rights might be understood as serving rule-utilitarian purposes. Ifthe disutility to victims of constitutional violations often exceeds the social benefits derived from the rights-violating activity, or if rights violations create long-term costs that outweigh short-term social benefits, then constitutional rights can be justified as tending to maximize global utility, even though this requires local utility-decreasing steps. Both the deontological and rule-utilitarian descriptions imply that the optimal level of constitutional violations is zero; that is, society would be better off, by whatever measure, if constitutional rights were never violated.] CONTENTION 1 [Restricting speech does not maximize well being, it only causes oppression to minorities and oppression can only be minimized through allowing speech or more rights. **] **if we want to maximize well being and minimize oppression, freedom of speech on college campuses cannot be restricted. UNDP, 10’ [The poorest communities in almost any region tend to be minority communities that have been targets of long-standing discrimination, exclusion and sometimes violence.This is true of the least developed countries, but also of the most developed. A key message of my work as Independent Expert on minority issues since July 2005 has been that poverty within minority communities must be viewed as both a cause and a manifestation of the diminished rights, opportunities, and social advancement available to the members of those communities. If poverty reduction initiatives and efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to benefit minorities, more coherent efforts and targeted strategies are required that address directly the plight of disadvantaged minorities.] [If you silence racists, then you silence minorities in the process. Minorities deserve their opinions to be heard, and following the status quo completely restricts this, leading to the oppression of minorities. And minorities aren’t just African Americans or Latinos, it's those with a different opinion, those who fight for equality and justice. So, you can’t just silence one and not the other, which is why the current status quo is ineffective.] CONTENTION 2 [According to the Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, originalism preserves the authority of the court. Following originalism and adhering to the constitution would be most ideal in this resolution because there’s nothing special in colleges that allow them to limit speech. Why can speech be limited on campuses when it’s not allowed in other places?] Brennan, 83’ [“The Court makes no pretense of subjecting Nebraska's practice of legislative prayer to any of the formal "tests" that have traditionally structured our inquiry under the Establishment Clause. That it fails to do so is, in a sense, a good thing, for it simply confirms that the Court is carving out an exception to the Establishment Clause, rather than reshaping Establishment Clause doctrine to accommodate legislative prayer. For my purposes, however, I must begin by demonstrating what should be obvious: that, if the Court were to judge legislative prayer through the unsentimental eye of our settled doctrine, it would have to strike it down as a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.”] [Public colleges are obliged by the law to not limit the freedom of speech, following the guidelines of the constitution would only benefit its people since the U.S. constitution is created for the people. By allowing college to limit speech, not only is it unconstitutional, but it also has to be questioned why colleges specifically are allowed to limit rights, while in other places, it’s simply illegal.] CONTENTION 3 [Suppressing speech on college campus means that student’s rights are being violated and their 1st amendment is being violated*. Doing the AFF ensures that no one is being suppressed. In order to stop oppression or any other issue, the guidelines of the constitution must first be strictly followed. Which is why allowing speech is good because colleges educate, A college that’s teaching its students that they are allowed to shut other people up because their ideas differentiate would be deemed as a bad college.] Maloney,16’ [“University campuses are now home to a plethora of speech restrictions. From sidewalk-sized “free-speech zones” to the criminalization of microaggressions, America’s college campuses look and feel a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship than they do the academic hubs of the modern free world. When rolling an inflated free-speech ball around campus, students at the University of Delaware were halted by campus police for their activities. A Young Americans for Liberty leader at Fairmont State University in West Virginia was confronted by security when he was attempting to speak with other students about the ideas he believes in.A man at Clemson University was barred from praying on campus because he was outside of the free-speech zone. And a student at Blinn College in Texas abolished her campus’ free-speech zone in a lawsuit after administrators demanded she seek special permission to advocate for self-defense. How have we let this happen in America, the land of the free? It’s because of what our universities have taught a generation of Americans: If you don’t agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or don’t find a joke funny, then their speech must be suppressed.Especially if they don’t politically agree with you. Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students don’t engage, they just get enraged. In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up. This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy.”] [From this, it can clearly be seen that the student’s religions, ideas and most importantly, speech is being suppressed, when someone’s ideas are being suppressed, they are being oppressed. In order for ideas to be exchanged freely in the marketplace of ideas outside of camps, ideas must be allowed inside campus. Restricting speech nullifies a vital part of colleges and universities because university are meant for educating its students, what is the means of educating when in the end, the students are not allowed to express their ideas?] Therefore: I affirm