The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Ought constitutionally protected free speech be limited on public college campuses?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
nebuchadn3zzar has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 99758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




(Pinker 2015) free speech is fundamental " exchanging and evaluating ideas presupposes that we have the right to exchange and evaluate ideas.
Therefore, in order to defend the stance that constitutionally protected free speech ought not be limited on public college campuses, I offer the following points:

1. state-funded limitations of free speech are authoritarian.

2. a limit causes a decrease in innovation and an establishment of an 'echo chamber'.
(Bloomberg 16)
[limiting free speech on college campuses] will create graduates unwilling to tolerate differing opinions"a crisis for a free society.

(Millsap 16)
Since spreading ideas and information requires communication " people talking to one another, attending lectures and presentations, watching videos, etc. " it's likely that limiting speech, either formally or informally, would have pernicious effects on innovation and harm economic growth in the United States.

3. free speech is a fundamental human right, and college students are adults.
(Stitton 95)
"Free speech is not a reward to be doled out to students and faculty whose ideas and rhetoric please presidents and deans. Free speech belongs to us all".

4. solvency only occurs when open dialogue is encouraged.
""s desirable to have hate speech out in the open. Sequestration of hateful opinions does not stop their dissemination."

4a. speech codes don't work.
(Friedersdorf 2015)
"...speech codes were policy failures. There is no evidence that hate speech or bigotry decreased on any campus that adopted them."

(ACLU 16)
"Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities -- the government or a college administration -- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech.

Thanks for the debate!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.