Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

The main thing my opponent can't seem to grasp is that our government is more of a threat to a free press than other governments, our government makes the laws, our government killed Frank Olson. A free press is instrumental in keeping the government from overstepping their bounds. If we give the government the ability to restrict the press for reasons not stated, they can cover their crimes and the people won't know who is a criminal and who isn't on election day. The government is not protecting a free press by making a free press not a free press by restricting it. National security is often used as a guise, and we cannot let the government decide when to restrict a free press. My opponent's rebuttal to my C1 was that he was not arguing against freedom of the press, and he agreed with the constitution. The constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." My opponent agreed with the constitution and then contradicted himself. He then stated that " it can serve no purpose if all amendments decreed within it have no way of being protected or enforced." Again, my opponent is using our government to restrict a free press so that other governments won't come in and restrict a free press. Do you see any flaw in that logic? His response to my C2 was that "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." Not true, sorry, just not true. My case in no way removes national security, in fact, my case upholds a more secure nation than my opponent's. I am upholding a free press merely to keep government in check to keep them from violating our rights, with this accountability, the politicians will be more inclined to uphold our rights and defend our nation because they know if the don't, the nation will know about it and they will lose power and influence. This totally nullifies my opponent's rebuttal that my case inspires more tyranny than removal of a free press. His response to my C3 was that "Freedom of the Press" and "Liberty" are only rights that are available to us whilst we live because we are secure in expressing them. " Wow. How can we be secure in expressing them if we are restricted from expressing them? My opponent is assuming a great deal, he is assuming that I am removing national security, he is assuming that by upholding a free press we can have no national security, and he is assuming that the government will only restrict a free press for the good of the nation. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. National security is not protecting liberty by squashing liberty in restricting a free press. So his protection argument no longer carries any weight in the round. A snippet of his final statement: "If Freedom of the press is forfeited, then only the "tyrannies" associated with loss of freedom of the press occur." My question for you to ask yourself is this: Which would be worse? An external tyranny that attempts to overtake the stronghold that is America, or American tyranny, that slowly kills our country from the inside out because no one is keeping them responsible by informing the people. The decision is yours, but because all of these things I would strongly urge you to vote for the Pro side of this argument. Thanks for your time, and good luck Con!