Censorship of the Media during Conflict is necessary.

I'll firstly apologize for presenting rebuttals last round, it was my mistake. I will concede the conduct point if voters feel it is necessary. I request that voters do not just vote for conduct though. If you vote on a debate, you need put precedence on voting on for the arguments presented. A summary of my opponent's argument: 1. "The fact that it's 'Unconstitutional' to the US constitution is irrelevant, as I never stated which country is in question here. " and 2. "honestly, there are loopholes in many world constitutions which people could bypass to get information. " 3. "Unless Con decides to go through every constitution of every country in the World, his rebuttal will be irrelevant. " 4. "I hate to break the Utopian bubble, but there is no such thing as a 'Truly Democratic Society. '"I will address each point.1. The subject at question is whether the media should or should not be censored. My argument was that it is wiser and more ethical to make certain sensitive information classified. The Constitution was a specific example. This provides the necessary safety without resorting to censoring the media.2. It would be much wiser to amend those loopholes than to censor the media. Pro provides no examples or evidence of these loopholes. It also raises the question of how could a country ensure that similar loopholes did not exist in censuring the media.3. False. The BoP is on Pro here, I provide a fair example of a better solution. The US constitution shows that censoring the media is not necessary to protect important information. This is a classic shifting of the goal posts. It is up to pro to give evidence that the current system does not work. He has provided no examples or evidence of loopholes in any countries laws.4. Obviously but if we are to strive for a truly democratic society it is necessary to maintain the freedom of speech. All refuted. Most were irrelevant in the first place. Actually during the London riots of 2011, the media initially reported that Mark Duggan had fired on police, which would have dissuaded any riots. This example works against Pro. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)To Prevent Hysteria: A RebuttalMy opponent is not advocating censorship here, but rather for the proposal I put forth. The government is fine in controlling what information (that is legally in their possession) is distributed to the public and what is not. Deliberately controlling what the media does and does not distribute is downright wrong though. I could propose a dozen counter examples of where censoring the media leads to enormous problems. I will stick with two. Hitler exercised a large amount of control over the media while he was fighting in WW2. He used embellished victories and downplayed losses. This led to dangerous nationalism and the "never surrender" ideology. It also contributed to Hitler being rarely questioned in his own country. (. http://www.ushmm.org...) Censorship unnecessarily extends losing battles and costs millions of lives. North Korea exercises large control over the media. Their leader, Kim Jung Un, is practically worshiped and is unquestioned in all he does. Censorship is a dangerous thing, and is to dangerous to justify. ConclusionWhile censorship may seem beneficial at first, it is important to remember the severe harms it is capable of and is known to cause. My opponent has not come close to fulfilling his Burden of Proof.