Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

Again, I negate. I provide definitions for grounding the debate. Ought is defined by Merriam-Webster as used to express obligation Restrict is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as to limit something. Any is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary as used to indicate a maximum or whole. Constitutionally Protected Free Speech as defined by Information Technology Law Wiki is all speech that doesn"t fall within severely limited exceptions. Observation: The definition of the word "any" in the resolution forces the affirmative to defend a world without restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. This allows the negative the ability to provide just a single example of a speech that needs to remain restricted to gain offense in the debate and win. Thus, I advocate a standard of truth testing. If the negative can disprove the truth of the resolution with a singular example, then we ought not do the resolution and instead allow restrictions that protect the educational climate of the university setting. The duty of the government is to make possible justice; Therefore, I value Justice which provides fairness under the law The broad allowance of speech creates structures harmful to groups of people therefore making my criterion resisting structural violence. Prioritize resistance because Contention 1: Toleration of evil in the name of survival destroys the value to life Callahan 73 Without life, all else is in vain. The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. It is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a "tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights. liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. The potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing. Contention 2: Unfettered speech causes structural violence A: Historically, hate speech precipitates violence Tsesis 10 European norms recognize that history provides ample cases of hate speech instigating violence. History overflows with examples making it clear that propaganda was essential to the Nazis' eventual genocide of Jews, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, the Islamist Arab Janjaweed continued mass murder and enslavement of Darfurians, the ethnic slaughter during the 2007 Kenya election, and the Turkish exterminationism perpetrated against Armenians. Despite indisputable centrality of hate propaganda in mass murder and hate crimes, the libertarian strain of American First Amendment law denies the potential harm. Subpoint B: Hate Speech ideology is too deeply rooted Tsesis 10 The notion that counterspeech will adequately combat group hatred and promote civil liberties, has been roundly rejected by the international community. Racism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are too deeply embedded in culture to be changed overnight. Telling a university employee subject to coercion, degradation, or insults to simply respond to antagonists provides no legal redress but mere platitudes. Subpoint C: Speech codes prevent structural violence and create equality Mider 13 Structural violence is the result of inequalities existing in societies that are economic, political, or stem from unequal access to education. Galtung linked structural violence to oppression resulting from other social subsystems: Structural violence has been defined as any limitation of fundamental human needs that can possibly be avoided. This is a situation in which individuals and groups perform their spiritual and material opportunities below their potential. I THEREFORE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING PLAN: Contention 3: Public Colleges and Universities should eliminate all restrictions on constitutionally protected speech except those that restrict hate speech, and more specifically, colleges and universities should be allowed to ban racist insults. Subpoint A: All speech restrictions except those that restrict hate speech should be eliminated. Fish 12 The expansive First Amendment allows the flourishing of harms a well-ordered society ought not permit. Harms to dignity involve undermining a public good, which [Fish] identifies as the "implicit assurance" extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. Hate speech assaults that dignity by taking away that assurance. The speech is the damage: "[T]he harms emphasized are often harms constituted by speech rather than merely caused by speech." Subpoint B: Universities should be allowed to ban racist insults Byrne 91 This examines the constitutionality of university prohibitions of public expression that insults members of the academic community by directing hatred or contempt toward them on account of their race. The university has a fundamentally different relationship to the speech of its members than does the state to the speech of its citizens. The protection of academic values, which themselves enjoy constitutional protection, permits state universities lawfully to bar racially abusive speech, even if the state legislature could not constitutionally prohibit such speech throughout society at large. AND Majority of students want restrictions to exist on their campus Simon 16 Asked if colleges should have policies against slurs and other intentionally offensive language, 69 percent of students said yes. AND Restricting free speech is beneficial for improving democracy. Leiter 14 The real problem with false and pernicious speech is that it leads some individuals to vote for those who will carry forth harmful agendas- think Tea Party in the US. And if that were right, then that would put constraints on free speech, even allowing for the independent value of democracy with respect to the good. AND Hate speech undermines the speech of targeted groups. Brax 16 Hate speech does harm by undermining the speech of targeted groups, which means that the utility that free speech exists to serve is diminished. The distribution of costs and benefits for allowing hate speech is unlikely to be fair or equal. The harm caused by hate speech primarily befalls people that are already among the worst off in our society. This, I argue, is a reason in favor of hate speech regulations. AND Allowing hate speech is a greater threat to democracy than restrictions Luban 16 Which poses the greater threat to democracy, hate speech laws or hate speech itself? Vigoroys democracies have judged that unfettered hate speech, poses the greater threat to self-government by making minorities fearful about participating in civic life. It does so as well by mainstreaming hate, in a vicious spiral that breeds more hate and empowers antidemocratic race radicals. AND The impacts of hate speech spans across entire communities Garnett 02 Hate speech is specifically intended to degrade and cause harm to individuals. In the context of historical oppression and discrimination, hate speech has larger implications for all members of the targeted group, not just the individual. Psychological responses to such stigmatization consists of feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred. Hate speech takes away human dignity and self-worth, and causes self-doubt. -- For all those reasons, I urge a vote for the Co