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

-Before beginning the debate I would first prefer anyone that takes this debate has some sort of debate experience and is willing to create long and thought out arguments. It is going to be a 4 round debate, I am hoping to get some good arguments for a good debate, if you have some good ideas for Con. .. go crazy! Thanks. With that, I will begin with my opening Speech and Case. .. -In life, there are things that people should know, and there are things that people should not know. "Knowledge is power", but as we all know, power has the capability to ruin lives, and too much power in too many peoples hands could mean many things going wrong which is why I agree with. .. -Resolved: Governments ought to have a right to regulate the media in order to protect national security. (Argument)1. Regulations would be for reasonable purposes. -The first reason that I think that governments should have a right to regulate the media is because they would (by definition of the debate) be doing it "in order to protect national security. " Therefore, it is a right worthy to be given since it is already in the best interest of society. (Argument)2. A society without regulations is worse then a society with them. -What you will see in most all cases, is that once there is a govermental group with appropriate regulations, then the group strives better. If you compare that to a society without regulations, you will often see that too much information or power is given to the common society. If my opponent would like me to elaborate more on this argument, I would be happy to, but since regulations on the media are a good way to protect national security, the right should simply just be given to them, because if they were not capable of regulating the media, they could then report any information that they wanted. (Sub-Point) A. Example of use of possible regulations. -This example may be a bit extreme but lets just say that the government found out that the world was going to end in 3 months, in order to promote societal welfare, it would be a right of the government to make sure that it did not get out that this happened. Although this is an extreme example, it does make sense that the government would hold off telling us about this discovery until they at leas found out about it more. (Sub-Point) B. Example of use of possible regulations. -Another possible use of regulations is if perhaps a government leader was severely ill and it would be of great use to other nations to know that another nation had no leader. Basically, any time that another government could hurt another government because of something the media says, it would then become a right for the government to stop the advertisement of that information. (Argument)3. The media is capable of getting crucial and deadly information. -During this debate, the most overlooked argument by Con may very well be how much information the media is capable of getting, and when they get it, how much damage they could do. Which is just another reason that regulations upon the media is essential to promote national security and societal welfare. -In the end- The media regulations will only be used when necessary. This regulations may be the only way to ensure the most possible safety to society and without them, we could very well risk many live or an unnecessary war. A society with these regulations does have a much better life than a society without them.