Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

AC/NC/off First looking at the Calleros Card. Extend the claim that education is hurt by hate speech, thereby restricting the educational opportunities for minorities or oppressed peoples. Only my opponent allows this, therefore vote con. Value: On the contrary, I didn't drop this. My opponent drops the question on the moral value for allowing hate speech go unrestricted. This drop means you as a judge can only look towards the Con's framework to uphold justice. Criterion: Perfect. She concedes education. Please now show how education is allowed where hate speech is allowed to go rampant. Contention 1: The attack on the Majeed card is again misinterpreted by the Pro. What I am claiming is that hate speech does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas and therefore should be restricted. The Pro literally cannot refute this. If they claim that hate speech contributes to the marketplace of ideas, then they are furthering a world of violence, and therefore automatically lose this debate. So, contrary to what my opponent says, I do garner offense by reducing violence proposed in the Pro world. AT: Slippery Slope, TURN: Restrictions do not create a slippery slope toward censorship; they are narrowly tailored, Hemmer 2K. Any potentially acceptable regulation would narrowly define "hate speech" as "unwanted, demeaning, and injurious hate epithets directed at a specific individual. " The code would apply only to this narrow category of expression. According to Henry Saad, "this speech does not advance ideas" (1991,1352). Therefore, no slippery slope is created and the Pro's argument fails to stand. She continues to propose counterspeech in the marketplace will solve, but I have provided MOUNTAINS of counter evidence that has gone relatively unrefuted showing that more speech or counterspeech will not solve anything. Only restrictions will help. The ACLU evidence will not have bearing because hate speech will always outweigh relatively "good" speech as show in the multiple Round 2 and Round 3 cards provided by the neg. Disregard this attack by the Pro. Again, we're actually looking at a framework of justice as the Pro drops the line of questioning from Round 2, therefore the Con wins because justice is best upheld in the Con world. Contention three: My opponent provides no solvency evidence for more speech conquering the bad, so extend all the Con's Disads through the round, another voter on the fact that at least the Con tries for solvency when the Pro solves nothing. Vote Con simply off that as well. - To the NC - No concession of framework was made other than by the Pro who doesn't answer the question provided in Round 2. Equal education is the forefront of universities and is only achieved through justice. Vote Con on framework. I never make the claim of 100% solvency for structural violence, rather pointing out that the Pro leaves structural violence untouched to make matters worse in her world. Vote Con for solvency, First Contention: I never make the claim that counterspeech is bad. I make the claim (REPEATEDLY) that counterspeech DOES NOT SOLVE ANYTHING. Period. That's why we must restrict hate speech, so vote Con. Education is also helpful, sure, but the Pro doesn't allow for education of oppressed peoples. Vote Con again on that point. Second Contention: The Strossen evidence does not show this, and the Northwestern evidence is unsourced and therefore can be dropped (please post the full evidence/card/citation in the comments so I can look at it. .. ). I keep impacting to a framework that I never dropped, so extend all my second contention evidence across the flow. Vote Con again for impacts. Counterspeech and education again do not solve for the reasons impacted above. Vote Con again and again and again. Third Contention: Same point I made above, I'll need to see the card please in the comments. Thank you. I'll refute your evidence word for word as soon as I see it. Just because you make a far reaching claim and attach a university to it doesn't mean you can claim it as a reputable source. I'll debate it once I see it. Thanks. Extend all Con evidence across the flow, and vote Con. I have more than enough solvency, so continue voting Con. The double bind makes no sense and is definetely refuted, so again, vote Con. The neg doesn't even come close to affirming, because the aff doesn't have restrictions in their world. The Con does and it is the only one that tries for solvency, so vote Con. Perms don't solve, so extend all of Con framework across the flow. Her perm means more education and counterspeech which has roundly been rejected, vote Con. AT Off: 1. Looking towards my 2nd contention. Simply getting someone who is oppressed to talk back will only make the problem worse, so completely disregard first off point. 2. Her misdiagnosis of the Con world continues. Restrictions silence hateful violent speech that is protected by the constitution to solve for violence. Vote Con off that. The POSSIBLE marginalization of minorities is severely outweighed by the multiplication of violence in the Pro world. Vote Con again off that. 3. Education again does not solve. Disregard this point, extend Con and vote Con again. 4. So she's allowed to generalize one instance at one college to say that it'll work all across the country? No she isn't. Drop the arg, extend the Con. 5. LOOK TOWARDS THE CULLEN EVIDENCE IN ROUND 2. HATE SPEECH IS PROTECTED AND WILL REMAIN SO. THE PRO WILL ONLY CONTINUE THE VIOLENCE CAUSED BY IT, AND AT LEAST THE CON SOLVES. Excuse the caps, but my opponent needs to stop abusing my words and twisting them to fit her story. Vote Con off that. She says "she doesn't make it worse". Ha. I think I've proved more than enough how hate speech will make things worse and how she won't solve for it, therefore making matters entirely worse. - OFF - Hate speech has no value to dialogue or the marketplace of ideas " it"s just dangerous Tsesis 10 Allowing students or faculty members to intimidate others through hate symbols or expressions favors the bigots' desire to advocate discrimination and violence while denying the victims' reasonable expectation of security while on campus. The constitutional importance of the First Amendment to democratic governance and self-assertion does not extend to menacing messages that tend to diminish the targeted group's sense of security and its ability to enjoy college commons areas and to attend university sponsored events. Students and faculty members are more likely to think twice before going to hear the college orchestra or heading to the student union if it requires walking through an area where a cross has recently been burned, a swastika has been displayed, or a supremacist rally has taken place. Hate speakers are neither inviting intellectual debate and rejoinder nor seeking political dialogue. Theirs is a campaign of silencing through intimidation-something that threatens the university's "marketplace of ideas" and is no benefit to educational interactions. Academic freedom is not a license for harassment. Neither does hate speech further the pursuit for' truth: calling Jews vermin, blacks apes, women whores, Native Americans savages, Tutsis cockroaches, or Mexicans lazy has nothing to do with truth. These derogatory statements are meant to exclude and stamp certain groups with the label of outsider to the university community. Derisive speech becomes academically punishable when it is meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence.