Argument: Freedom of expression is a political right

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all WLDs because it is a necessary political check on the government. For example article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights [1] and The First Amendment in the United States. [2] The protection of this right is most severely tested when the ideas are abhorrent to our morality but when one person is denied their freedom, it is a harm to everyone’s freedom.

[1] ‘Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’, June 2010, http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7...

[2] ‘Amendment I’, Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Candidate 1: "Danger to students

Hate speech poses a clear danger to students and other members of the campus community. Often, the hatred is directed towards minority groups that are easily identifiable based on skin colour, clothing, or behaviour. Because these minorities are easy to identify, they can be targeted by those swayed by the speaker’s message. Every hate crime is a tragedy and an attack against the principles of WLDs. Even when the message doesn’t provoke violence, it can have a deep emotional harm on members of the targeted community. As such, the government has a duty to intervene to ensure that individuals are safe. [1]

[1] Kaminer, Wendy and Femi Otitoju, “Protecting free speech is more important than preventing hate speech” (Debate) Intelligence2. Retrieved 2011-08-24. http://www.intelligencesquared.com/quick-debates/protecting-free-speech-..."
Candidate 2: "All rights have to be balanced. Universities have a duty to ensure that everyone is protected and if one person’s right to free speech is infringing on another person’s right to safe access to education in a non-hostile environment then it is just to slightly infringe the first party’s right rather than entirely eliminate the second party’s right."
Candidate 3: "Whatever value the expression of hate speech has can be discussed in classrooms where the ideas can be discussed in their social context rather than promulgated from a platform. Banning hate speech will not transform universities into factories of rote learning or crush a progressive atmosphere. Hate speech isn’t about affirming rights, it is about limiting rights. There is no analogy here to the feminist or gay rights movements."
Candidate 4: "Discourages education of minorities

When individuals feel that they will be targeted at a university based on who they are, they are less likely to attend that university either out of fear they will be discriminated against or because they believe that they will not be allowed to express themselves freely without being discriminated against or assaulted. No group should be discouraged from attaining higher education because of immutable personal characteristics. Tertiary education is at the heart of social mobility and self-actualization. Even if no attack ever takes place, because hate speech can create an atmosphere which deters members of society from attending university the state is justified in banning it."
Candidate 5: "It is wrong that obnoxious and hateful views should be given an airing and individuals left to their own devices to decide if those views are right or wrong. Accepting that these views can be voiced on campus and opponents of these views can make their own case implies that these views have equal standing; which is not the case, while there may be freedom of speech there is not freedom to hurt one and other. It is wrong to suggest that hateful ideas will spread faster if banned as if they are not banned those who are preaching such ideas have greater access to others so have more opportunity to persuade"
Candidate 6: "As stated, hate speech can have significant harm on certain individuals’ abilities to attend university and engage in campus life. Their rights to education must balanced against any potential harms that may befall someone who has to think twice before saying something hateful about a member of their university community."
Candidate 7: "Reduced dialogue

While hate speech is a form of expression, it is not one that encourages dialogue. By promoting hatred based on immutable personal characteristics it is by definition anti-dialogue. Hate speech does not contribute anything; it merely provides a justification for violence and discrimination. Extreme messages, be they in words or through symbols, deter moderates from voicing their opinions, either because they do not want to legitimize the message or out of fear of reprisals. This reduces the net dialogue on university campuses and injures the quality of the dialogue that remains."
Candidate 8: "Allowing Hate Speech Discourages diversity

Members of groups that find themselves the targets of hate speech will be less likely to attend universities where they feel targeted. As a result, those campuses will become less diverse which will decrease the most effective deterrent of hateful ideas: understanding through interaction. Less Muslim, gay, Jewish, etc. students on campus is exactly what those promoting hatred are trying to achieve. Less students of the targeted group makes them easier to target because there are less people speaking out against the hate speech. A downward spiral is created that, if not checked, can drastically reduce campus diversity which is a massive harm to social integration and social harmony. Speech codes or other censorship sends a signal to minorities that they are welcome in the university. [1]

[1] Seaman, Julie, ‘Hate Speech and Identity Politics’, Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 36:99, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/361/seaman.pdf p.107"

All rights have to be balanced. Universities have a duty to ensure that everyone is protected and if one person’s right to free speech is infringing on another person’s right to safe access to education in a non-hostile environment then it is just to slightly infringe the first party’s right rather than entirely eliminate the second party’s right.
