That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

First, I want to say that I accept his proposed definitional change. Second, have a look back to round one. Here I defined free speech as being a right. It isn't an obligation. The government, just like everyone else, should have the right to remain silent. I am only contending that this should not limit people's right to speak if they so choose. I am not saying that if I wandered up to the Pentagon tomorrow and asked the guy at reception for passcodes to all the US nuclear silos, that he should give them to me. Rather, I contend that he should be free to do so. Except that he won't unless he's incredibly corrupt, in which case giving him the passcodes was probably a really bad idea and he would have told the terrorists secretly anyway. Indeed it would be logical for the secretary to lie to the would-be terrorist, with the intention of catching him red-handed. My opponent therefore needs to do more than appeal to the need to keep some information secret. He needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. That's what I'm disputing. I suspect my opponent may be confusing freedom of information with freedom of speech. Bearing that in mind, I shall now proceed to focus on my three contentions:1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? My opponent more or less concedes that they cannot, as he agrees that politicians use it and that this should not be accepted. However, he argues that this information has nothing to do with national security, and that while the system is open to abuse, that cost is outweighed by the benefit of not giving the RIRA the latest US defense schematics. Firstly, that's a faulty benefit. No defense contractor in the world would just hand over their schematics because some foes asked politely. Secondly, the cost of the abuse cannot be known. We shouldn't trust the politicians to tell us when we can speak because we usually have no way of knowing whether classified information has been classified for a legitimate or illegitimate purpose, until long after the harm has been done. My opponent also states that just because a minority abuse the system doesn't mean we should assume a given politician will. If we accept that as true, then it must also equally apply to my case. Just because a few minorities want to hurt a given nation doesn't mean we should assume a given person will. I don't think my opponent really believes that. Unless he justifies otherwise, my first point stands.2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? To open this argument I'd like to remind everybody of the Wikileaks example I raised last round. Wikileaks exposed the truth, and the United States is apparently no less secure now because of it. Knowing the truth does not increase a terrorist's resolve. I provided strong empirical evidence that knowing more in fact dissuades terrorists from terrorism. I also told you that terrorists are unlikely to learn critical defense truths even with completely free speech, because the government is as free to not tell as they are to tell. My opponent's argument, however, appears to presuppose "universal availability" under my model. To run this argument, first he needs to show why allowing free speech will mean secrets are told. He has not done so. The point must stand.3. Will the truth be told? My opponent makes two arguments. The first suffers from the same flaw as his round two argument, that it presupposes free speech means secrets getting revealed. Again, my opponent must do more to justify that. Secondly he argues a bit of a one-sentence wonder: "the purpose is not to lie to the public" but to "protect" them. I never said the purpose was to spread misinformation. I rather said that this is what happens. The purpose is to deny people access to the truth, be that to protect them or protect a corrupt politician's interests. But I took that one step further and told you that when people don't know the truth, they will believe any myth that covers the gap. Myths can only be rubbished with truths. That's why the truth is so fundamentally vital to protect. In conclusion, national interests are always important. But what nation proclaims itself the land of the secure? The land of defense at freedom's cost? This is about protecting your rights, because I have shown again and again that states have nothing to gain from keeping their citizens in the dark.