Resolved: Public colleges in the U.S. ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech

I will do extensions then move on to rebut the Neg case.Extensions:Extend contention 1:Limiting speech causes the chilling effect. Speech is chilled because of uncertainty as to what speech is or is not allowed.Majeed, 09’ explains that[Speech codes are vague, and students and administrators must guess how far they extend. Students are so fearful of violating the code that they self-censor. This prevents crucial discussion from taking place and ideas from being shared.]Extending contention 2 which states that originalist ideas and adhering to the constitution is good and readdressing it with more reasons:Linder ‘16[1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives. 2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court. 3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria. 4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision). 5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations. 6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract. 7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]Extend contention 3 and stating that: By suppressing speech, public colleges are being unconstitutional and anti-democratic by violating the first amendment.Sevcenko ‘15When Blinn College administrators enforced their unconstitutional rules against Nicole, she fought back by becoming the 10th plaintiff in FIRE’s Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project, which helps students and faculty file civil rights lawsuits against their colleges and universities for violating their First Amendment rights. Public colleges such as Blinn are bound by the First Amendment. Administrators are government officials, and thus when they stop students from speaking out about issues they are passionate about— be they gun rights or gay rights —it’s unconstitutional censorship.A public university is public, hence it should follow the constitution, as public schools are supported by the government. Blinn college had no right to restrict speech. Especially against minorities, like those advocating for gay rights, restricting speech is oppressive and unconstitutional. Only by allowing free speech on campuses can we solve this problem.Moving on to Rebuttals:My Opponent first offers the definition of Public colleges and ought, which fully copes with the AFF because it's under the social contract that public colleges and universities ought to oblige by the law. Please extend my contention 2 which states talks about the originalism idea. Public colleges are obliged by the law to not limit freedom of speech because they are public actors. When I questioned the NEG by asking why it's okay to restrict speech in PUBLIC colleges but not in any other setting, my opponent simply replied that the constitution is outdated. That response 1, does not provide any competition for the AFF because the Aff is advocating to follow the constitution in this very scenario, AFF never states that we cannot make amendments. Aff is advocating for the rights of individuals to be protected in college campuses. It's not in the Neg's place to argue that the constitution should be changed.The role of the ballot is to vote for the side that provides the most solvency to the round, hence, AFF wins solvency because TURN the NEG's second contention which talks about how speech codes promote equality but:While language has the POSSIBILITY to wound, the most effective counter to language’s ability to hurt is to recognize that language doesn’t do what it says. Exploiting the gap between language and reality opens the possibility to subvert injurious language. Restricting this language only reifies the effects of language.Butler, ‘97[on the basis of a grammatical analysis alone, appears to be no threat. But the threat emerges precisely through the act that the body performs in the speaking the act.The threat begins a temporal horizon within which the organizing aim is the act that is threatened; the threat begins the action by which the fulfillment of the threatened act might be achieved. And yet, a threat can be derailed, defused, can fail to furnish the act that it threatens. The threat states the impending certitude of another, forthcoming act, but the statement itself cannot produce that forthcoming act as one of its necessary effects.Such speech is, however, vulnerable to failure, and it is that vulnerability that must be exploited to counter the threat.Instead of obliterating the possibility of response, paralyzing the addressee with fear, the threat may well be countered by a different kind of performative act, to turn one part of that speaking against the other, confounding the performative power of the threat.][An example would be that if someone feels strongly about a topic, but is not allowed to publicly talk about it, then they would find other ways to enforce what they are trying to say by taking actions. Taking actions would actually backlash and cause an even greater harm to be done.]Turn the NEG's first contention also because he provides that students want speech codes but:1. Just because students want it doesn't mean it's good for them, take the example of when a high schooler are not doing well on a subject, so they want to copy off of someone else's homework, or exam. That doesn't fully develope into a good habit for that student if it's allowed. Sure it's what they want, but is it good for them?2. Just how vague is the data my opponent is providing? Usually, a minority is targeted because they are numerically less than the majority, so what can my opponent say and how much does he know of whether those data are biased?3. Doing the AFF will not only gain more popularity but will provide a more sensible resolution to hate speech.Point A: Of course, by common sense, no one will want their rights taken away, after all, the U.S. is a democracy, and immigrants come from all over the world for these rights. Point B: My opponent says that free speech is encouraging hate speech. But bringing hate speech into the spotlight is the best way to combat it.ACLU ‘16[Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem.Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry.The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have todo the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.] Framework debate:My opponent refutes my value by saying how restricting speech helps people because it prevents discrimination, he also says how my value criterion doesn't work because the constitution is outdated. But please turn that because first,Restricting the First Amendment doesn’t solve for racial intolerance.Morrissey, 16’[The touchstone of the First Amendment, and any of free society, is freedom of expression– no matter if the government or others may disagree. It allows for individual freedom of mind and places an important check on those in power.51 First Amendment oppression would set a dangerous precedent and is not the answer to any social intolerance. Freedom for the thought that we hate is often important to the discovery of truth because sometimes viewpoints change.52 Free speech and freedom of association are the tools that empower a minority – tools that must not be diminished.]Freedom of speech helps minorities voice their opinions without it, minorities can’t be empowered to speak out about something they believe in. In addition, by setting a precedent to violate the amendment, it tells people that it’s ok to disregard laws. As I talked about above, NEG is advocating for the people to disregard laws, which is totally not right. Allowing colleges to restrict hate speech, even though he says NEG is only restricting hate speech, still comes out to violating the 1st amendment. Which sets a dangerous precedent that violating the law is okay. The NEG-criterion is equality which fits into the AFF framework, making the AFF framework a prerequisite because only by abiding by the constitution can we achieve equality.Therefore AFF wins framework. All in all, my opponent advocates for change in the U.S. constitution because it's "outdated" but just because the law is old doesn't mean that student's rights should be violated on campus. I again presume an answer from my opponent to the question that "What is the means to be educated when in the end, you are not allowed to express your thoughts?" Public colleges are for education, and all NEG says is that hate speech disturbances education, but since I've already proved that codes don't work, there's no point of doing NEG.Therefore, I urge you to please vote AFF.