This shouldn't be too hard -
Aff - Free Speech Good
Constitutionally protected speech is being threatened now by public colleges and universities of the status quo, and that is bad - thus it justifies the necessity of the resolution -
Neg - Free Speech Bad
Free speech (of constitutional mandates) cannot be allowed because it includes hate speech, and that is bad - you don't have to be totalitarian in your restriction since the resolution says "any," so you can prove that the implications of hate speech outweigh the affirmative benefits.
on aff, i would read a constitutionality aff- essentially the framework would be adhering to the constitution, and then the offense is essentially affirming is consistent with the consitution
on neg, you could read a Kant NC, since allowing all protected speech would trample on the freedom/rights of some
Thank you both for your ideas! I know that while researching this topic the First Amendment does not protect some specific types of speech, specifically one that I came across was:
Government may prohibit the use of 'fighting words,' which is speech that is used to inflame another and that will likely incite physical retaliation. Likewise, language that is meant to incite the masses toward lawless action is not protected. This can include speech that is intended to incite violence or to encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. The test for fighting words is whether an average citizen would view the language as being inherently likely to provoke a violent response."
I'm aware that communication about issues such as sexism and racism does not always elevate to "fighting words." But, how could the aff defend the importance of the discussions of these issues in society if the neg brings up that it's difficult to measure what is considered hate speech and what is not, especially in heated conversations about topics like that?