Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

Thanks again to Pro. Sorry my rebuttals could not be longer, but I can not rebut tomorrow. I'd forgotten there were only 48 hour instead of 72 hour rebuttal periods and did not finish my prewritten structure, so this round may not be as proper as I wanted it to be. I will post a larger and more sophisticated conclusion in R3.Rebuttals C1: The Constitution - The only argument my opponent presents here is that Freedom of the Press is mentioned as a right that should be necessarily upheld under the constitution, which I do not disagree with. I am not arguing against Freedom of the Press, I am arguing that National Security is more important because it insures Freedom of the Press amongst other values.The constitution is a series of laws written on a piece of paper. Whilst serving the prime purpose of dictating how the government functions and what rights the people are entitled to, it can serve no purpose if all amendments decreed within it have no way of being protected or enforced. Continued below.C2: The removal of freedom of the press inspires tyranny - This argument is irrelevant considering the scope of the debate, as the removal of freedom of the press accompanies breaches in National security. If we remove National Security, it would inspire more tyranny than the removal of Freedom of the Press.> "X" permits "Y"> "Y" cannot be inherently more valued than "X", for if "X" is removed, as is "Y". "X" is a direct reason for maintaining "Y".Replace "X" with Security of the Nation and "Y" with Freedom of the Press. C3: Liberty is the preeminent value and is upheld by freedom of the press.Again, see C2. "Freedom of the Press" and "Liberty" are only rights that are available to us whilst we live because we are secure in expressing them. Consider the definition of "liberty" - (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views - this means the same as the definition initially provided, it just makes it easier to articulate my case based on how it is phrased)Liberty, in itself, is reliant on security by definition. Unless societyhas a way of protecting liberty outside social structure like freedom of the press (i.e physical protection) , it cannot continually insure liberty against outside threat. The founding fathers of America were only able to establish the principals of liberty they desired through the creation of an army to protect and enforce the values of liberty; without one, oppressive forces would have continually dominated American society. Liberty and Freedom of the Press, in the modern world where oppressive force is an inevitable threat, cannot exist without security to protect said values.Counter-rebuttals My opponent either misunderstands or misrepresents Contention 1. "he is valuing life and says that when life is in danger, liberty must be pushed to the wayside." I did not make this statement. Statements remotely similar to this were made in the next contention. I am more inclined to believe that Pro is just misunderstanding my argument, so I will reclarify it whilst also highlighting that he did not adequately address the points made above in Contention 1, P1-P5.In Contention 1, I argued that the right to do anything is irrelevant if a person does not feel safe in doing it. National Security insures that "v" person can successfully illustrate their freedom of the press. There is no outside threat prohibiting it. If people don't have insured protection when publishing an article, for example, condemning a religious practice, then they aren't protected at all because it is not their "right". They will be punished for it; there is no sense of national security to prevent said person from being targeted by foreign terrorists or nations.In Contention 2, my opponent responds with this,"So basically, we could put everyone in a maximum security prison and have perfect national security, but the lives of the people in the absence of their rights would not be as valuable."This is an extreme distortion of an argument and can be applied to his stance as well. All things are irrational when taken to an extreme. For example, if we kill everyone on Earth except for five people who are sure to protect freedom of the press, then they would live with their rights in check, but the rights would not be as valuable in themselves as there is less application within them.If National Security is forfeited, then all of the adverse effects of loss of freedom of the press occur - because oppressive forces that do not value freedom of the press are free to manipulate the governing of the nation - alongside losses of other rights & loss of human life If Freedom of the press is forfeited, then only the "tyrannies" associated with loss of freedom of the press occur.This makes national security more important and rightfully valued than freedom of the press. I will finish rebuttals in the last round, but I will introduce no new points, as that would be unfair to Pro. Good luck!