Resolved: PCUs ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.

AC/NC/off First, on the Calleros card. My opponent claims it says that we should default to government. However, it just says the the college should follow the Constitution. It in no way disregards the unique job of colleges to educate, nor does it make the actor anything but (as it says in the resolution) public colleges and universities. My observation that aff doesn"t have to defend every single instance of speech was completely dropped, so it extends. Value: My opponent conceded this, which means that we look only to my framework (consequentialism and achieving goals). Thus, all impacts back to minimizing structural violence are entirely irrelevant in this round. Criterion: The goal of colleges is to educate. The goal of colleges as government is to follow the Constitution. The goal of courts is to achieve justice for more people. Contention One: Con says that the speech they restrict does not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. First, the Majeed card says that restrictions chill speech which DOES contribute to the marketplace. Second, even if you buy that their restrictions don"t stop the marketplace, that"s not a turn, so they don"t get offense off that. Third, most any ideas need to be permitted or we get a slippery slope where any restrictions are tolerated. Fourth, if the ideas bring no value to the marketplace they will be destroyed in the marketplace through counterspeech and education, and if they won"t be they do have value--that"s a doublebind. The Strossen evidence says ANY restrictions would be implemented with bias, not just status quo restrictions. I don"t imply the con defends status quo restrictions but that they defend ANY restrictions, which they do or they"re not negating. So extend this argument. The counterspeech arg says that restrictions cover up the root cause in a ruse of solvency. They claim more speech means more hate speech, but as my ACLU evidence says, more speech leads to more speech countering that hate speech. And, as I said in my Northwestern evidence, speech codes are counterproductive. The marketplace of ideas is crucial to education which links back to the framework. My opponent claims I have a doublebind: More speech leads to structural violence. First, restrictions actually cause this structural violence by causing more hate speech and more biased implementation. Second, we"re not even looking to a framework of minimizing structural violence but of good consequences and meeting goals (in this case, education). Contention two: My opponent claims the fact that hate speech is protected turns my contention. This doesn"t even make sense. Then they cite the Brown v. Board case that restrictions are constitutional, but the Brown case only discusses rights to be in schools and the requirement of the institution not to discriminate. It DOES NOT discuss hate speech restrictions in any way. And prefer my evidence because free speech is more relevant to the First Amendment without any "broad interpretations. " The con says restrictions are constitutionally required but this goes directly against the First Amendment. Prefer the actual text of the Constitution and the most relevant court cases, and extend that restrictions violate the Constitution. Contention three: My opponent misconstrues this. Of course this happens for other reasons as well as speech. However, stopping the cases relevant to speech at least solves something. They solve nothing so at least pro does SOMETHING involving courts and achieving justice, which is THEIR VALUE. To the NC. Framework: They conceded the framework earlier in the rebuttal; this is irrelevant. Equal education is less important than actual good education. So I promote education way better than con by allowing a marketplace of ideas for education to take place. Again, structural violence is irrelevant because they conceded it, and they claim if I don"t solve structural violence completely I don"t solve anything. That"s a ridiculous claim; you can"t 100% solve anything. Con doesn"t achieve the goals of institutions nearly as well as pro, so a vote for pro better meets the framework and is thus more moral. A vote for con is a vote for censorship and disallowance of education. First contention: They claim counterspeech specifically is bad. That doesn"t make sense; counterspeech is good for stopping bad speech. Also, education is helpful, and they didn"t refute that. Second contention: I do have evidence that restrictions are worse than nothing: both the Strossen evidence and the Northwestern evidence show this. They claim they solve for violence. First, they keep impacting back to a framework they conceded, so none of this is relevant. I achieve better consequences; vote pro. Second, restrictions don"t stop violence but rather cover up the problem and increase hate speech. Only counterspeech and education actually stop bigotry which is the root cause of violence, so vote pro to solve for that. Third contention: They claim I need statistics to make the Northwestern evidence debatable, but this makes no sense. You can"t attach statistics to every card but they evidence is still relevant. I"ll ask how many people exactly they plan to solve structural violence for? Or how many exactly are harmed by hate speech? A precise number just doesn"t make sense. The fact that research shows people have psychological motivation to do something if it is restricted shows that it at least happens sometimes so this contention is turned. Don"t drop the evidence just because they can"t refute it. They dropped that they have no solvency with speech codes. They can"t prove that con does anything, so vote pro just off of solvency. They claim insults are protected but extend the doublebind which they dropped: If words incite violence then they are incitement and not protected; if they don"t then harms of restricting outweigh harms of that speech. Thus, doing the neg is either a REALLY BAD IDEA because it is outweighed and has no solvency, or doing the neg affirms the resolution. It"s a pro vote either way. They also dropped the perm do aff then neg, and the perm do neg if not aff, so extend both of those and affirm just off the perms. The "one-off" isn"t even an off, just more evidence that hate speech silences. But here"s what they don"t get: it doesn"t matter. First, even if one person can engage in counterspeech and education than that"s still good, stops hate, then hate speech can"t silence as much, so it no longer silences and more speech is good. Second, restrictions ONLY SILENCE FURTHER. As shown in the Strossen card, restrictions only serve to further marginalize minorities. And as shown in the Northwestern evidence, restrictions only cause more hate speech. Third, restrictions hide the problem and let hate fester beneath the surface. The only way to really stop hate, which they claim silences, is to educate and for those who can to engage in counterspeech. Fourth, TURN. Hate speech doesn"t silence but is catalyst to groups that fight hate (such as Black Lives Matter or the Civil Rights Movement). This happens in college: recently at University of Central Michigan, a very anti-semitic Valentine"s card was given to a Jew. Instead of being silenced, the "victim" started a rally supporting freedom and equality and fighting hate. Fifth, if hate speech silences it silences because it threatens victims, and as soon as it threatens (and so silences) it is no longer protected speech but an exception to the First Amendment. More speech will solve. The con seems to think they solve for any harms, but they only confound them. They claim change will occur but have ZERO solvency evidence. In fact, pro is the only one in this round who actually achieves consequentialism, but also the only one who stops bigotry instead of making it worse. Even if con wins that pro doesn't solve, at least I don't make it worse.