Censorship of the Media during Conflict is necessary.

http://www.youtube.com... IntroductionPro has the Burden of Proof here since he is affirming the resolution. I will refute his two reasons here and then proceed to provide arguments against censorship. The resolution does apply to all times our nation is in conflict, which is the majority of the time. The video here --> is an interesting look at why we should not resort to media censorship out of fear.RebuttalsReason 1: My opponent supplies three points- the freedom of information act, the Mumbai Incident, and plans for new technology. The first point is easily defeated. The Freedom of Information Act has specific exemptions to prevent people from obtaining information that could harm US soldiers, agents, or police. Exemptions: "Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. The material must be properly classified under an Executive Order. Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Additional resources on the use of Exemption 3 can be found on the Department of Justice FOIA resources page. Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information. Exemption 5: Information that concerns communications within or between agencies which are protected by legal privileges, that include but are not limited to: Attorney-Work Product Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege Deliberative Process Privilege Presidential Communications Privilege Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy. Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes if one of the following harms would occur. Law enforcement information is exempt if it: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells." more exclusions "The first exclusion protects the existence of an ongoing criminal law enforcement investigation when the subject of the investigation is unaware that it is pending and disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. The second exclusion is limited to criminal law enforcement agencies and protects the existence of informant records when the informant"s status has not been officially confirmed. The third exclusion is limited to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and protects the existence of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, or international terrorism records when the existence of such records is classified. Records falling within an exclusion are not subject to the requirements of the FOIA." [1] Pro's arguments are based on the idea that freedom of information means freedom to all information. It doesn't. Now for the Mumbai attacks. Pro claimed that news stations exposed counter terrorist activities risking lives but provides no evidence or sources for this. After looking through the information on some of the attacks, it seems that Pro has his information backwards. No vital information about the government's information was given out, and none of it was accessed by the public. News stations like CNN and regular Civilians through Twitter and other social media were actually considered incredibly beneficial to the public. Vital information about the terrorist's whereabouts and activities were posted constantly on Twitter and repeatedly shown on CNN warning the general public about the imminent danger [2][3]. One man was able to create a Google map of attack locations to aid citizens in nearby areas as well as counter terrorism forces [4]. One terrorist was captured alive. A major part of his prosecution was a photo obtained by a man with a phone! [5] Pro's arguments are self defeating. His third point also has no evidence. There is no reason to believe the media will manage to acquire plans like this, it would be incredibly illegal. None of Pro's arguments are solid. We can easily protect our soldiers and citizens domestic, and overseas without resorting to ignoring the First Amendment. Arguments Against Media Censorship My opponent does have the BoP, and I have defeated his arguments, but to go above and beyond I will present several arguments against media censorship. It's Unconstitutional! "Amendment I 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." [7] Sir William Blackstone explained the implications very well "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects." [6] We should not be censoring the media! Certain material can be classified for security reasons, and the acquiring of that material is illegal, but under no circumstances can we arbitrarily censor the media out of fear. One of the reasons our nation is so great is because we stand on some fundamental principles of Democracy. One thing that is prevalent in totalitarian countries and absolute monarchies is the use of media censorship. What happens when we begin to censor legitimate criticism? During the Vietnam war the Administration attempted to give a constant impression of "winning" the war. It wasn't until the media coverage of the Tet offensive that the American public realized the end was not in sight. In a democratic society decisions as important as war should be made by the people, not by a group of people intent on censorship for the sake of their political careers. People have a right to know. Conclusion Censorship of the media is a dangerous practice, that is done out of fear. We cannot resort to it. The founding fathers had a very important reason for the first amendment. The "government of the people, by the people, for the people" [8] should never resort to silencing the people. For a truly democratic nation to succeed, and prosper, we cannot face our problems and dangers with fear, but we should resolve to uphold the most important values of our nation. Anything less than that is our defeat. [1] http://www.foia.gov... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [3] http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com... [4] https://maps.google.com... [5] http://www.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [7] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [8] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...