This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes

I apologize for the misunderstanding and confusion of my opponent's nature, and hope that she will understand. Now, what I have stated was merely to reinforce the fact that a breakdown and infringement of a government's own policies by itself would not only take away meaning from the objective fact that which is law, but also to encourage individuals to disregard the importance of basic societal virtues and values. In just such a way, I refer to the breaking down of the infrastructure of the government, merely to give a vivid example of the impact of such violations of societal values. "I" am not claiming that it will cause the extreme damage that you assume, merely that the violation of such an intrinsic natural right that is crucial and central to policies and the infrastructure of a strong and respectful government is irreversible and WILL definitely cause a negative degradation of societal values. Now, in much the same context, my opponent's only argument against this as a form of refutation is merely to assert that the government has the *ability* and *power* to restrict such a right, and that they should do so in the context of this resolution. On the contrary, however, my opponent gives absolutely NO sufficient justification for such an argument, merely stating that prisoners SHOULD be removed from society and the very influence of the account of their crimes would violate privacy of victims. First off, I would like to immediately point out that it is exactly the fact that the government has such a power that our awareness for such oppression must be prioritized. It remains as an obvious objective fact that the only terms on which the government may exercise such an infringing power would be in the case of imminent and immediate threat to our social community, for which my opponent makes *NO* attempt to refute. As such, we find that there remains no reason or justification for the government to take away the intrinsic right to freedom of speech in the context of this resolution, for my opponent fails utterly to refute the basic foundational guidelines for which the government actually places jurisdiction upon. His assertions of glorification as well as violation of privacy has no relevance to the safety of our social community as a whole, and can obviously be ascertained to be invalid. Now, he writes further concerning the distortion of facts by the mass media. Indeed, however, I would like to point out that the explicit wording of the resolution, as in "publish" accounts of their crimes, that I have brought up numerous instances in my rebuttals, does not allow for the so called 'glorification' of crime as he puts it. Now, the publication of the account of a crime will encompass the range of objective facts that occurred in the past. In no way does such a publication, as I have explained, allow for the subjective glorification of crimes for which it provides a barrier to society. He writes about "big" criminals, and the money reaped from the publication of crime, and yet provides no warrant or substantial evidence for such an interesting claim. Furthermore, we find that such an argument is invalid on social grounds, on which the monetary or financial gain reaped by individuals in prison are not directly received by them for a plethora of reasons. The legal community may very well liquidize all funds and any further financial gain made by the individual who has committed a crime, and even if not so, the financial gain made by such a criminal can only be argued with by subjective ethical grounds, but with no tangible impact that allows us to believe such a claim is in any way true. The media, then, is in much the same way limited by the explicit wording of the resolution itself as well. If an account of a crime were to be published and broadcasted or spread by means of the media, then we would, by the very nature and definition of the terms in the resolution, take it that there would only exist accurate accounts of occurrences. The purposeful distortion of facts by the mass media is irrelevant to the context of this resolution, for it would be absurd to hypothesize about an event for which the likelihood is miniscule, if not impossible, due to legal restrictions. Further arguments: The publication of such accounts of crimes by the criminals themselves may also serve as a substantial way for individuals to inform our social community of the range of crimes committed, and educate as well concerning the way that our legal system has proposed treatment of such individuals for the welfare of our society. It will not only serve as a fundamental way to further the deterrance of crime, but also to allow for the informative means by which all individuals may learn the consequences and retribution that our society gives to the wide range of crimes that have been committed. Now, finding that my opponent fails to in any way testify against or refute my arguments of the Constitutional rights that are categorical and imperative in nature as well as the oppression of individualism for which forms the grounds for neglect of societal virtues and development, there remain really no points or arguments that she has refuted adequately on my part. Due to the lack of time, as I am having a few issues in my life at the moment, I apologize sincerely for my short arguments and hope to refer to them and expand in the next speech.