Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

In this round I will be responding to the arguments presented by the negative side and providing a few more arguments for my side of the resolution. It seems that my opponent is valuing life over all other rights, so I will include many references to this in my future case. In response to his contention 1: Freedom of the press is irrelevant if people are not protected in utilizing it, I would say that people's lives significantly decrease in value when rights are taken away, he is valuing life and says that when life is in danger, liberty must be pushed to the wayside. So basically, we could put everyone in a maximum security prison and have perfect national security, but the lives of the people in the absence of their rights would not be as valuable. Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death. " he certainly seemed as though he would not push liberty to the wayside if life was in danger. "Having a sense of national security promotes and atmosphere of safety and lack of fear of vocalizing your beliefs within the populous. In a plethora of possible threats to national security, people's lives and safety may be specifically targeted for confidently or strongly utilizing their freedom of the press. " My opponent must be arguing that national security should be valued over a free press, I am arguing that a free press ought to be valued over national security. My main argument is that of a governmental actor, or a government making decisions of when to restrict a free press. If we give control over a free press to the government, there will be no accountability between the government and the people. So the people would be more likely to be afraid of their own government than an outside threat in violating a free press. By the example I gave of Frank Olson being pushed out of a window by CIA operatives under the guise of national security, we can clearly see that when there are no censors to the government, it will do whatever suits it best, including violating my opponent's value of life. If we could trust the government, there would be no need to have this debate. But when the government has the power to restrict a free press, it can cover up all of the things that it doesn't want the people knowing about, like Frank Olson, The Watergate Scandal, etc. If the government would be more open with the people about what it was doing, the people would be more supportive of the government, for example, the government told the people what was happening in world war II, and encouraged the people to buy war bonds, we would not have won the war if the people had been withheld information, making them suspicious of their own government. It is in cases where a free press is suppressed, such as the case of Edward Snowden, that information is transformed from being "published" to being "leaked". It is impossible for the people to be in support of governmental action if they don't know about it. I response to his Contention 2: Human life is the moral priority, and deprioritization of [national] or human security threatens human life, making prioritization of Freedom of Press immoral, I would argue that he is trying to protect a free press merely by upholding national security. He is protecting the country from outside threats, while in reality the greatest danger to a free press is our own government. So human life is not the moral priority, human life is a pragmatic value for achieving things that have intrinsic value, human life has little value by itself, and a free press keeps the government in check and upholds liberty. So valuing freedom of the press over national security is not immoral. Con's argument please. And good luck!