This would potentially work, if the framework went that way. Unfortunately, almost every Affirmative or Negative has a point that "both sides are amoral" or asks in cross-ex "You would agree (insert side of resolution) is amoral, right?" And nobody ever disagrees. The assumption inherent in most cases is that both sides are amoral, and the burden is to prove whether speech or moral standards should be upheld more often than not (aka, it's not an absolute rez). Trying to prove otherwise would get you into a messy definitional or theoretical debate which most Stoa judges would probably loath. (In fact, just this Tuesday I hit a Negative case which actually said "community moral standards are always moral" and tried to disprove the resolution on a deontological basis. It was fascinating, really. But he forgot to challenge my definition, and I resoundingly defeated the points that he rested the case on as well as successfully turning the deontology framework. Oops.)
When I did LD I would always try to find a way to do the exact opposite of what everyone else was doing. In fact, I picked up my Neg case for last year by having a debate coach tell me to never do what I did in my neg. All you have to do is make it appealing, and arguing that "community moral standards" are always moral might actually be pretty easy. If you grant that free speech is a human right, that'll make it a level playing field in the judge's mind, I would think, and then you can have a rights vs. morality debate, which would be rather easy to win.
As to the response to the civil rights movement, my apologies. I was incredibly unclear in that.
Basically, the civil rights movement is, if I understand your post properly, being used to say this: The civil rights movement illustrates a reason why community moral standards should be valued less than free speech.
Here's the problem, and this is a problem with a lot of LD applications: the civil rights movement proves no such thing. All the civil rights movement shows us is a situation in which a community changed their moral standards because of free speech. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is more valuable than the other, unless one includes the link of "everything, or most things, a community does is right."
It's just pointing out the lack of a real link, basically. I ran into this all the time with LD applications, and I would always argue this. The applications just showed an example in which a person/community/entity chose one thing, but that has nothing to do with the value of said thing. Last year in the NCFCA it was Snowden–the problem is that Snowden is just a guy who chose to exercise his freedom of speech. That says nothing about its value.
Does that make a little more sense?
2012-2013: LD, 14th at Regionals
2013-2014: LD, 2nd at Nationals
2014-2015: LD, 1st at Regionalshttps://contendacademy.com