Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

AC/NC/voters Value: My opponent literally stated, "Sure. Consequentialism. " Sure means yes. They conceded this. They claimed I dropped a question, but first, I answered it throughout the debate, and second, even if I did drop it they conceded the value anyway. Criterion: Their only rebuttal is that speech stopped chills education. This has no link to the criterion debate over whether achieving a goal meets consequentialism. Thus, we assume it does because a dropped argument is a true argument. Contention 1: Counterspeech does solve; the fact that they can"t bring up a single piece of evidence extended to this point in the round is significant in showing that I am right. My ACLU evidence extends. They claim I don"t educate the victims of hate, but I actually stop bigotry and end up educating the bigots to stop bigotry and then the subjects of hate can learn. Even if you don"t buy this, speech codes chill speech so by implementing them you are stopping education of EVERYONE, not just victims of hate speech. Even if I do stop education of hate victims (which I don"t), you still affirm because I outweigh on magnitude and still education somebody. Contention 2: They can"t extend any refutation, and in the previous round they didn"t refute this at all. Again, a dropped argument is a true argument, extend this contention and vote pro simply on this. Contention 3: They still misunderstand this. I"m not claiming court clog is caused by restricting speech, rather I"m saying that preventing speech restrictions help the already-existing problem of court clog. On to the NC: They concede they don"t completely solve. That"s completely correct: they hide the problem whereas I actually try to solve it. Contention 1: Rebuttal dropped, my rebuttal holds, this argument doesn"t extend. Contention 2: They claim that a system with severe enough consequences stops this reaction. My evidence shows that this is false: any restriction is bad and stops this. They also completely dropped my Strossen evidence that speech codes would be biased and confound structural violence and lead to bad consequences. Contention 3: Again, they can"t extend any defense of this contention. I refuted it in the past round by explaining that implementation is biased and speech codes promote hate speech, and with perms. They dropped these rebuttals which generate offense for the pro, so I am actually winning this contention. Vote pro for the following reasons: 1) Solvency: They still have not provided a single piece of solvency evidence. THIS MEANS THEY DON"T SOLVE. I have shown that I solve for bigotry with my ACLU evidence, so affirm on this point. 2) They make it worse. Even if you don"t buy my solvency, at least I don"t make hate speech worse. Speech codes chill preventing counterspeech, implementation of speech codes is bad, and speech codes promote hate speech. If nothing else, I don"t cause more bigotry. 3) Perms: I win perm do the con, perm do pro then the con, and perm to the con in all cases but the pro. They refuted none of this, so I should win on this alone. 4) Constitutionality: I don"t violate the Constitution, they must OR their speech isn"t protected. Not violating the Constitution is good because if it is violated it is effectively useless and our government falls apart, throwing the country into anarchy. This outweighs any other impact in the round on magnitude. 5) Court clog: I help fix the problem, they leave it as it is.