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

I will defend the motion that public colleges and universities have the right to restrict campus speech. Tradition dictates that the proponent of a motion defines its terms. Hence, I will take: "restrict" to mean either preventing such speech (for example, by no platforming) or punishing one for making such speech. "campus speech" presumably just refers to any speech which takes place on the university campus. I will also refer to "academic institutions" as a less clunky way of saying "colleges and universities". I'd like to start by making a disclaimer: I do not claim that academic institutions are *always* correct when they restrict speech, but that there are cases in which they are, and hence they have a right to do so. With that out of the way, my argument will be that colleges and universities should restrict speech when it: 1) Is demonstrably false but is proposed to be true by an official speaker. 2) Incites hatred or violence towards an individual or group, or is otherwise harmful to a specific group of people. 3) Transmits illegal information. So, to argue these points: Academic institutions are (and should be) places where truth is spread, and when the truth is unclear, all the various ideas get equal weight, and debate is fostered. However, there are certain matters for which there is no debate- the truth is settled. For example, the Earth is flat. An individual hoping to speak at the university and argue that the Earth is flat should be prevented from doing so, as it would be wasting the resources of the university, and therefore of the government body funding it*, to allow that individual to attempt to perpetuate such an obvious untruth. Allowing this person to speak would also undermine the integrity and credibility of the institution in which such speech would take place. Hate speech is always wrong, and should always be prevented. For example, if an individual on a college campus were calling for the beheading of homosexuals, this person represents a serious threat to the safety and well-being of the individuals on that campus. Hence, the college must be allowed to intervene and prevent that person from expressing such views, or to punish them for doing so. Some information is illegal, and should never be allowed to be shared; for instance, the identity of undercover CIA officers, or the names of websites on which an individual would be able to access illegal material, such as child pornography. As such, academic institutions should be allowed to prevent individuals from transmitting such information through speech on their campuses. I would like to emphasise the wording of the motion: "Public colleges and universities have the right to restrict campus speech. ". It does not attempt to argue that academic institutions are always correct to limit speech, but simply that they have a right to do so, and hence if one can think of a single instance where academic institutions should be allowed to restrict speech on their campuses, the motion necessarily carries. So, to summarise my points. 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. I will finish my R1 speech now, and wish my opponent all the best for the rest of the debate. *con specified that the motion regards academic bodies funded by the government.