Res- Governments ought to have the right to regulate the media in order to protect national security

1)The resolution says ought to have the right. I have said before that in a country where the people agree with this notion, where this notion is a part of the social contract there is nothing wrong. However, my opponent argues that this idea is absolute. Unfortunately I disagree with him because I believe this to be a violation of human rights as outlined by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. " It's very clear that the people have a right to express any and all information through any mode of communication, including all aspects of media. 2)Your question did not go unanswered. Please reread my last round's speech. I promise it's in there. If you can't find it, I said yes. I believe that the freedoms of speech and press OBVIOUSLY should not be violated, and therefore I would allow that information to be reported. 3)My opponent's largest argument is that we should trust our government and hope for the best, as he has admitted that corruption is a very real possibility. "You have to assume that most governments (at least the ones where a power like this was granted) would care for their people. " I. "Sure, I admit that the government could go overboard with this regulation right, HOWEVER, the media will DEFINATLY go overboard with their right to report EVERYTHING they discover from the government. " First off, I would like to say that that is both ridiculous and an opinion. There are no presented facts to back that up, and let me ask a rhetorical question. .. What is worse: a corrupt government that subjugates it people by violating and ignoring their rights or the media being allowed to report information freely? God forbid that people know what their governments are doing. II. Yes it is true that a government that controls its media can protect itself, although there is nothing to say that a government that doesn't can't. You have to understand that while my opponent has discussed the concept that when it comes to allowing regulations you have to assume that government will truly do its job, he always claims that media will always report harmful information when and where they receive it. At the same time, we would have to assume that the media would not do this, but unlike my opponent's statement I will offer a reasonable answer as to why. If the media were to report harmful information within their own country, would they not be hurting themselves? It should be obvious that regardless of ratings, a reported would not willingly put himself or his entire family's lives into danger by reporting big government secrets that result in invasion or death for his own countrymen. 4)That was an excellent point, however this example is an extreme and very improbable. At the same time, in this event, I would still say that freedom of press is more important than regulation. -Voting for con, is voting for your rights, essentially. Regulating media is a perversion of our rights, and if we as citizens say we do not want regulation than we deserve our rights. My opponent has continually argued against me claiming how evil the media could become and has constantly claimed that the media needs to be regulated. However, I feel that his basis for this action is an opinion, as he believes the government is the more trustworthy, something that I would definitely disagree with. It is not a question here of what I can and can not do, but it should always be a question of what I can and what I should do. Remember, freedom is either absolute or nonexistent. Thank you for these past rounds, sorry about the inauspicious start. If you submit another good topic I'll be eager and ready to go again.