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

In this debate I will focus on three main questions: Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? Will the truth be told? First, however, despite my invitation, my opponent failed to define national security. Therefore I shall define national security as being the protection of national citizens against large-scale external threats. 1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? Former US president Richard Nixon justified his violation of multiple laws of property and privacy under the pretext of national security in the famous Watergate scandal. National security allows whoever is in office to pass whatever legislation they choose, even that giving fundamental rights. The first amendment to the United States' constitution gives people the freedom of speech. This is common to the vast majority of bills of rights around the world. But almost nowhere is this actually enforced, and almost always is this for reasons of "national security. "But what is vital to protecting the interests of national security and what isn't is made up by the government. The government therefore has a license to restrict whatever speech it wants to - they arbitrate free speech. Nixon provides a prime example for why this is a bad idea in practice. Politicians are able to cover up any crimes they commit by preventing witnesses talking to law enforcement - in the name of national security. Furthermore, even if the politicians don't commit these crimes, we should not trust them to. It's like being told by someone "I can do anything I want, but I'll act within the law, trust me. " Who would trust that guy? Trusting someone is a pretty big thing. Being allowed to get away with anything is an even bigger thing. But being trusted to be allowed to get away with anything AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS is the biggest thing of all. It sets a dangerous precedent for government control. I want my opponent to justify why we can know that the government will not abuse their power. Until then, it is illegitimate for them to have their power and the motion must stand. 2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? Just because I know the London Subway is vulnerable to bombing doesn't mean I will go bomb the London Subway. I so happen to know that there is a spot in New Zealand where our main gas pipeline crosses our main electricity line, which would screw over our country for weeks if bombed, with no security measures and even a public footpath and a sign marking the spot. There would be no way to prove who did it if a bomb went off there. Amazingly, while in London the security was kept fairly secret, the London trains were bombed and New Zealand is completely safe. All that shows that it isn't the level of secrecy that determines a terrorist's resolve to bomb. So what about the execution - is it easier to bomb when you know the security at the place you are bombing? Well, a few points. First, the reason why most people bomb is out of ignorance, because they don't know the truth. Under my model, the truth can be known, under your model it cannot, as I demonstrate under point 3. Second, just because people know information does not mean they will tell. Nobody who knew the security arrangements at the twin towers would have just walked around the streets shouting them out to anybody who cared to listen. But they should be free to do so, just as they in fact were. Right now I am free to tell you exactly when my work hours are, just so you can rob me. That doesn't mean you will rob me, or that I will tell you. But I have the freedom to do so if I so choose. I want to make this point very clear - I don't support forcing actors, such as the state, to say something because they know something. I'm saying they should have the right to do so. My opponent needs to show a tangible threat from this right. Look at Wikileaks. President Obama has announced his exit strategy, pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan fully in 2014. Wikileaks didn't hamper that one bit. Wikileaks, history has proven, compromised nothing. The fact is that the best resolution to any war is negotiation. By not being free to talk with the terrorists, you enforce the death of your people. And that's what the United States is doing, as the trial of Ralph D. Fertig proved - US citizens can't ask the terrorists to stop. That's a tangible benefit to free speech - not all free speech is negative, and much will dissuade rather than encourage those who would compromise national security. 3. Will the truth be told? When people have freedom of speech, the truth is always worked out. Indeed the only reason why free speech is limited for reasons of "national security" is in fact to prevent truths from being told. The best way to combat false ideas is to speak the truth. Area 51 is shrouded in secrecy, and unsurprisingly there are perhaps a million theories as to what goes on there. If the government was to show people around, then there would be no question that it is an experimental aircraft testing facility. When people are denied the truth, they believe falsehood. Therefore without supporting my side of the argument, the truth cannot be told. I'd like my opponent to show otherwise. I look forward to reading my opponent's response.