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

My opponent completely misrepresents any and all arguments that I have offered, which you, the voter, can easily observe. Because it is clear that my opponent lacks the foundational knowledge to thoroughly understand and analyze the resolution that he wrote, I will provide him with the education he should have received before we began this round. What Free Speech is: Free speech, its purpose, is to preserve free thought. John Milton described in paradise lost a "marketplace of ideas" which ought to be accessible by all. In a legal sense free speech means freedom of expression; the meaning of "free speech" is broader and more encompassing than the mere freedom to utter whatever verbiage you may elect without fear of reprisal. Where government in any way obstructs the free-flow of information, it has hampered free speech. Where government disrupts communication it has hindered free speech. Where government places limitations on what can be said, by whom, to whom, and how; it has limited free speech. Free speech is a right, but it is not an absolute right. No one has the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Even still, that free speech is a right does not mean that it is to be valued over things like national security, or causes which may demand higher precedence in any given situation. The question for us to answer today is the preservation of free speech, or the cause of national security. In civilized society we concede much of our freedom for the cause of order; for our safety and security. An unlimited free flow of information in any society is harmful. My opponent recognizes this. Though he only contends that just cause for not spilling all your secrets is to prevent one from being "weird" the reason to treat sensitive information with a certain degree of secrecy is far more compelling than a mere desire to avoid weirdness. The cause of protecting sensitive information (information that could be used to cause harm to innocent people if in the wrong hands) is to protect the integrity of both society and of government so that citizens are safe. Restricting access to sensitive information and maintaining a system where information as described above would be classified and kept from public view, does abridge absolute free speech -but people do not have a right to absolute free speech. I remind my opponent, the resolution we are debating is as follows: "That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security" Definitions are not static. They are not almighty parameters which impose limitations to conceivable logical end. Rather than address the substance of my proposed refutation, my opponent wishes only to bicker over definitions and make false accusations of logical fallacies -the hallmark of a debater who cannot respond to the substance of a refutation. So that the issue of Egypt is put to rest, I will touch on that in more detail this time. My opponent wishes to believe that it could only be the case that national security is threatened by external threats. I suppose he is unfamiliar the concept of a home-grown terrorist (like Timothy McVeigh who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombings or Nadil Hassan who was responsible for fort hood). He myopically makes no room for the possibility that domestic threats could exist, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Because of the insight that Egypt offers to the topic, it is entirely relevant to this debate. Egypt provides an excellent case study to how social networking media can cause social unrest. There is no valid argument to counter the statement that domestic threats can jeopardize national security. Egypt faced a domestic threat to its national security; because it was unable to quell the insurrection Egypt was destabilized. When the internet was cut off, riots did die down. To shut down the internet would be an encroachment on free speech, but would it not be justified given the situation? R1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech? I am just as skeptical about governmental shadiness as the next guy, but I would ask my opponent and any voter to consider the alternative. What would a world look like where anyone can access anything at any time? Where you, I, or someone that would desire to harm you or I could access anything from military schematics to research and blueprints to construct nuclear warheads. Iran could construct it's own nuclear weapons from our model if only it could gain access to information that would be publicly accessible to more than three hundred million people that inhabit the fruited plains of the United States; what a challenge that would pose. My opponent does not consider such a situation even though it would be the new state of things in a world where this resolution were affirmed. He does not consider the because no rational person (not even my opponent) would contend that governmental secrets should be available to the public; after all -people who go around telling everyone everything are just "weird." (see my opponent's refutation." On another front, and perhaps a more contentious one, let us consider something that hits a bit closer to home: domestic insurrection. During the Red Scare the United States silenced all varieties of "dissenters" who were believed to be communists polluting the home front. We prosecuted Schenck, Gitlow, and a litany of others. While McCarthyism has a bitter connotation, it served a purpose: it demonstrated that no one had the right to use words that presented a clear and present (or probable) danger (like advocating for the overthrow of the government and plotting revolution). In the modern world, if Facebook were used to incite riots to overthrow the government (as was the case in Egypt), would those riots not constitute a threat to national security? Obviously. Should the government then unplug the internet? Yes. While free speech would be sacrificed, it would be done in the name of protecting both the people and the institutions which enable society to run smoothly -and therefore would be justified. R2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth? The question is fallaciously worded. As I have afore said, The "truth" is not jeopardized here, only access to information. My opponent cited Wikileaks as an example to demonstrate that the release of sensitive information does not cause harm. While I am unaware of any material harm that resulted to the US as a result of the Wikileaks scandal, the information that was released was but a small fraction of all the information classified by the US government. This information may have been benign in nature, but that is not to say that all information will be. Until my opponent responds to this, he has lost this point. R3. Will the truth be told? I would encourage the voter to seek an understanding not only the definitions of terms provided here, but of what they consider the issues and the significance of those issues here to be -but there has been entirely too much talk of definitions for this debate and I would ask my opponent to refrain from such petty pseudo-attacks in the future. My opponent contends the following: " I do accept anybody has the right to keep secrets, but I also think they have a right to speak freely. Those rights are not mutually exclusive." If there can be even one case that illustrates where free speech and national security can exist then free speech and national security can be mutually exclusive. That is not to say that mutual exclusivity is absolute, but rather that on a situation by situation basis the possibility exists where one must be favored at the expense of the other -which I have plentifully demonstrated above and in preceding rounds. The "truth" then, can be justifiably withheld from the public if doing so protects the people. As such, there is no conceivable possibility that the PRO has won this debate.