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

If the governed were to consent to government, if there was a social contract indicating that it was alright for the government to regulate media, then there would be no problem. However, your statement suggests absoluteness; so I am assuming that you mean to say that it is government's right to regulate under all circumstances. "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" You admit yourself that knowledge is power and that power can be a dangerous thing. However, did you not consider the possibility that a government with knowledge and power could also lead to many things going wrong? More importantly, what shouldn't the people know? There is no list of things the people should not be informed about, therefore the government would be the ones deciding. If the government decides what we should and should not know, then they have the power to operate out of the public eye. This is too much power for government, especially to be held over the people. "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." But what exactly constitutes protection of national security? In order for this to work, there would have to be a government that completely respected the people and did not abuse its power. Yet, the course of history suggests that this is either impossible or unlikely. If there is no set list or definition for what would constitute the protection of national security, then the government would be able to define in any manner they saw fit. You may think this is absurd, but if the government were able to defend themselves, however weakly, then anything could be for the protection of national security. And if you give government a loose definition with which to work with, they can edit media in any way they see fit; essentially it could end in book burning. "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." Please, do elaborate. And this reporting whatever the media sees fit, that's called freedom of the press. "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." If the world was truly going to end, I think I have every right to know for one thing. For another, if there wasn't enough information to conclude truly that all life was about to become extinct, then yes government should investigate further. However, if the media found out and chose to report that, why should we allow government to regulate that? I think we all have a right to choose what we wish to know and what we wish not to know, and I think that most people would want to know something substantial like that. "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." Fidel Castro became ill. His brother took his place until he gets better. The thing about world leaders, is that usually, they have some sort of line of succession. For instance, if Bush were to be shot today, then Cheney would be temporarily become President. While you may think that that would be an opening to attack, it is my belief that people have a right to know who's ruling their country. "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." I understand that media has unbelievable skills when it comes to gathering information, yet in a country where there is freedom of the press, don't they have every right to report? Reporters report, that is their job. You may see regulation as a means to protect the country and its people, but you are overlooking the limitless possibilities of corruption and behavior reminiscent of book burning. "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. The information restricted could be dangerous which is why I must stand Pro that governments ought to have the right to regulate the media in order to protect national security, so please vote Pro." Unfortunately I have to disagree and say that there is no way to know for sure that a government will only use this right or power when necessary. Power and corruption go hand and hand too often. You see a better life, but I see oppression of thought and freedom. If the government is allowed to dictate what is inappropriate for me to know, then they aren't regulating, they're censoring. And if they take away one right (press) then what's to say they won't try to expand and take more? I believe that in a society with regulations, the peoples' lives would only be better do to ignorance and that in reality they are much worse off. It should not be a question of what can the media present to th people, but what they should. Please, vote Con. "This was quite disappointing. I am hoping that Mikel will still be able to debate this round. For now, however, I guess all of my arguments stand." Once again, I apologize, I had some private issues arise. Very stressful, but I think I've handled it, and now I'm ready to debate.