Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

I negate that public colleges and universities ought not restrict any free speech. Observation: For con to win, they must only win that there is a single instance of free speech that should be restricted. Thus, regardless of how much offense pro extends, they cannot win unless they win every con argument. Point One: Public colleges and universities should restrict hate speech. Hate speech is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, gender, disability, or other traits (ABA). Hate speech is directly harmful. Bakircioglu "08: "[T]he immediate, short-term harms of hate speech include rapid breathing, headaches, raised blood pressure, dizziness, rapid pulse rate, drug-taking, risk-taking behavior, and even suicide. " Hate speech normalizes oppression. Fordham Law "99: "Those who call for regulation of hate speech further contend that in allowing such messages to be conveyed and spread, the government is arguably constructing and even perpetuating a damaging social reality about the affected groups "so that members of that group are always one down. ' 69 All members are harmed, because "at some level, no matter how much both victims and well-meaning dominant-group members resist it, racial inferiority is planted in our minds as an idea that may hold some truth'. . . when one repeatedly hears that "those people" are lazy, dirty, sexualized, money-grubbing, dishonest, inscrutable. .. [w]e reject the idea, but the next time we sit next to one of 'those people' the dirt message, the sex message, is triggered. . . such ideas often become an internal reality for victims. Repeated messages of this sort eventually cause victims to believe that perhaps they do not deserve to be treated as everyone else. " And, hate speech silences, preventing counterspeech. Garrett: "Hate speech codes do not seek to limit constructive dialogue, which is necessary for gaining knowledge and reaching critical consciousness (Freire, 1970). They seek to protect individuals from harmful speech and allow such individuals to feel safe speaking out. By allowing only the most powerful individuals to speak, hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities and maintains the status quo. Hate speech is not authentic dialogue (Freire, 1970) and therefore, does not deserve protection. According to Freire, dialogue is "an act of creation, it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another" (p. 70). " Restrictions are necessary and the only effective response. Johnson "99: restrictions are a "pragmatic response to the urgent needs of students of color and other victims of hate speech who are daily silenced, intimidated, and subjected to severe psychological and physical trauma by racist assailants who employ words and symbols as part of an arsenal of weapons of oppression and subordination. '" Thus, I advocate for narrow speech codes. Johnson continues: "Implementing a narrowly drafted race-neutral code provision based on a hostile environment model, in addition to a penalty enhancement component for bias-inspired violations, is permissible, constitutional, and necessary to ensure that the university's mission is carried out. Such a code, along with forward-looking, long-term educational objectives, would work towards stopping hate on campus without stifling the speech of individual students. " Clearly, codes are beneficial. Goshgarian citing Delgado "07: "[C]olleges [are not] barred from drafting narrow rules that hone in on the conduct they wish to control. And when they do, courts are very likely to find in their favor. " Harvard is a great example of this: It solely regulates hate speech. This restriction has worked well. And from Harvard, "University regulations against hate speech are entirely necessary for maintaining respect and dignity among the student body. " Furthermore, hate speech restrictions stop a vicious cycle of hate speech. Research from Northwestern shows that when one group dehumanizes another the dehumanized group is likely to dehumanize others. Stopping hate speech stops this cycle of hate. Stopping even some hate speech has huge impact in stopping the cycle. Point Two: Colleges should implement time place and manner restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions can, should, and already are being implemented on campus. Free Legal Dictionary explains: "The U. S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal [the] governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of [speech] individual expression. " Furthermore, time, place, and manner restrictions happen in the status quo with no problems. Refusal to implement them causes safety concerns and destroys human dignity by allowing constant harassment and disruption of education. Even the FIRE agrees: "Those [Time, place, and manner restrictions] are reasonable, content-neutral provisions that serve a significant governmental interest (i. e. , keeping traffic flowing or allowing classes to continue) while still allowing speakers other means to spread their message. " For all these reasons, please negate. On to my opponent's case. They begin by citing a UN Declaration of Human Rights quote. However, the UN Declaration itself directly limits that right to protect society: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. " Since hate speech infringes on the rights of others, it is forbidden under the UN Declaration itself, so turn that argument. My opponent mentions civil liberties and that silencing opinions is bad. That's exactly why you negate! Hate speech silences legitimate opinions without (as I cited in my Garret evidence) counting as authentic expression. Banning hate speech is the only way to ensure these civil liberties, so turn the argument to my side. My opponent next argues schools are limiting discourse and debate about politics which is bad. I'm not advocating for limits on debate, and in fact I'm arguing for limits on the exact type of speech that stifles debate. My opponent says it's "important for people to talk about their stances. " That's beneficial only when ALL people can talk about their stances. Hate speech silences minorities and stops them from engaging in the exact type of free expression my opponent claims is so important. My opponent then claims "If the United Nations believes that you have the right to express your opinion and talk about it without interference, then our school campuses should follow suit. " Thus, whatever the UN says is how colleges should act. The UN actually advocates for hate speech bans and reasonable limits on rights, as I mentioned earlier. Thus, yes, our school campuses should follow suit and ban hate speech. For the record, I also think colleges should ban things like threats, incitement, and child pornography, but I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that when my opponent said "free speech" they meant "Constitutionally protected speech. "