That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

"that free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security" The resolution we debate today reads "that free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security." The burden of proof then, for the AFF is to demonstrate that in no case government has the right to classify information for purposes of national security -as information that is classified, by impact and effect, restrains free speech. In essence, the NEG must prove that in no case is it acceptable for the government to keep information from its people in the interest of preserving national security. If the NEG can in any case prove that a restricted flow of information is beneficial to a nation because it protects national security, the NEG has won the debate. My neglect to define national security was not a concession to stipulate whatever definition my opponent provided, merely to afford him the opportunity to frame his arguments upon his understanding of what national security was. My opponent considers national security to be "the protection of national citizens against large-scale external threats." I would expand that definition to include all external threats. To refute my opponent's case: R1) There is no question that the cause of "national security" has been used in the past to justify a litany of questionable acts and policies by politicians and governmental agencies. However, that "national security" has been abused as a cause in the past does not abrogate all purpose or benefit from its pursuit, or governmental secrecy in totality. I agree with my opponent that national security should not be used by politicians as a blank check to protect themselves from criminal prosecution (as both Presidents Nixon and Clinton attempted). Again though, that does not mean that all governmental information should be publicly accessible. Watergate, we now know, had nothing to do with national security -only shady political antics. Clinton tried to claim that being sued for sexual harassment would hinder his ability to be an effective president and commander in chief, which Supreme Court Justice Stevens found to be absurd (Clinton v. Jones). However, in both cases, while national security was the desired end that supposedly was championed by both Nixon and Clinton, the real question was of executive privilege, and what authority executive privilege afforded presidents to avoid prosecution. There are cases it would be not only feasible to justify governmental obstruction of informational flow (and in effect limit freedom of speech by hindering access to information), but prudence and practicality would demand it. Schematics to governmental buildings, security protocols for physical presidential protection (efforts designed to keep the president from bodily harm), launch codes, nuclear weapon research and technology, defense schematics and technological blue-prints, etc. all are best kept from the public for reasons that are self-explanatory. I contend that the problem with publicly available launch codes and etc. is the increased likelihood that such information would fall into the hands of a rival or enemy who could use that information to cause harm to us. To classify information like that is to hinder free speech and the flow of information, but in the name of national security, practicality demands that we do so. R2) My opponent secondly considers the implications to universal availability of governmental knowledge. The likelihood of my opponent committing an act of violence, I would say, is quite low. His knowing of the schematics of the London Subway most likely would not pose a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom because he possesses neither the means nor the will to harm Londoners. Someone who did posses both the means and the will to harm Londoners who was intimately familiar with the inter-workings of the London subway is an entirely different matter. A terrorist, equipped with the means and the desire to cause harm (someone who would constitute a tangible threat to national security if they had access to sensitive information), could and would use such information to kill innocent people -information that wouldn't be readily accessible if it were classified. While a classification system isn't perfect, it is an effective barrier if properly implemented to ensure that sensitive information that could be used to harm people doesn't fall in the wrong hands. I contend that while such a system does impair free speech, it is a necessary cost in the name of security -after all, who really cares about where the air ducts and gas pipes are located in a subway anyway, unless you want to use them to cause harm. Someone who needed access to that information, for, say, repair or improvement purposes would be granted clearance (access to specified classified information) -but a terrorist would be out of luck. My opponent is correct in believing that not all free speech is negative. In fact, most free speech is positive, but there are some cases where information is best kept from the public. R3) I respect my opponent's high regard for the truth, but I question his understanding of the impact that universal access to all information (wether that information is sensitive or not) will have. My opponent is correct that the best way to combat false ideals is to speak the truth, but speaking the truth and our ability and the government's necessity to do so is not undermined by a system where information is classified. There is a fundamental difference between not speaking the truth and keeping information from the public that could result in societal harm by jeopardizing national security. My opponent is simply mistaken when he contends that "the only reason why free speech is limited for reasons of "national security" is in fact to prevent truths from being told." Indeed, the purpose is not to lie to the public, but to protect them from the harm that would result if sensitive information were to fall into the wrong hands (like the hands of people who had the means and will to kill the innocent). To support the Affirmative is to support a world where anyone can access anything at any time -a world where those who would desire to cause us harm are only a google search away from learning how to do so. True enough, classification should be sparingly used. In no way should politicians be allowed to "classify" information as a way to dodge accountability for their actions. Only information that is critical to the integrity of our government and infrastructure should be classified -like operational procedure for intelligence gathering at the CIA, or weak points in security at the Pentagon.