Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

Final Rebuttals and ConclusionIn this round, I will only make rebuttals and expand on what I have said in the past. =================="The main thing my opponent can't seem to grasp is that our government is more of a threat to a free press than other governments, our government makes the laws""My question for you to ask yourself is this: Which would be worse? An external tyranny that attempts to overtake the stronghold that is America, or American tyranny, that slowly kills our country from the inside out because no one is keeping them responsible by informing the people"This point - which is surmised both at the beginning and end of my opponent's argument - is redundant. Once another government takes control because of a lack of National Security, they will 'make the laws' and they will "have the ability to kill Frank Olson" just as easily as the current governing system supposedly did. The comparison that can be made between the two theoretical governments is that "Current Government A" and "External Government B" may and will differ in to what extent they permit freedom of the press. "Again, my opponent is using our government to restrict a free press so that other governments won't come in and restrict a free press. Do you see any flaw in that logic? "Important: this is a misrepresentation of my position. I am alleging that our government restrict a free press to some extent so that outside governing systems do not come in and forfeit the free press entirely. Under Current Government A, certain aspects of a Free Press are not permitted. Under External Government B, (example: dictatorship), close to all forms of free press are prohibited, including things as mundane as this debate itself. As clarified below, by allowing prioritization of freedom of the press over national security in all cases, we allow the takeover of External Government B (or worse). My opponent alleges that because minimal forms of restriction of freedom of the press slowly occur within the nation, it is inherently worse than total forfeiture of free press that occurs due to restriction coming from outside the nation. That is fallacious. "My opponent is assuming a great deal, he is assuming that I am removing national security, he is assuming that by upholding a free press we can have no national security, and he is assuming that the government will only restrict a free press for the good of the nation. "By allowing a completely free press to exist, we can have no national security - this is what I argued. A completely free press implies the direct fall of the nation, as nuclear war codes, possible protocol for the forfeiture of all defense mechanisms (whatever they may be) or etc are leaked once any malicious person with access to knowledge of this information uses freedom of the press to release as much. The government may well restrict free press for causes other than the good of the nation, but the cases in which they do do it for the good of the nation are vital if the nation is to be upheld. If they did not restrict the free press in cases that would endanger the existence of the nation - like the leaking of nuclear war codes - the nation and the freedom of press within it would cease to exist, as it would either be destroyed or overrun. His response to my C3 was that "Freedom of the Press" and "Liberty" are only rights that are available to us whilst we live because we are secure in expressing them. "Wow. How can we be secure in expressing them if we are restricted from expressing them? Here, my opponent (in one sentence) surmises that security equivocates restriction and uses a paradoxical line of thought to try and eliminate the credence of my argument. Restricting minimalist portions of freedom of the press does not equivocate to total forfeiture or restriction. Let's apply my opponent's logic in context:"Because I cannot use freedom of the press to publish nuclear war codes, I am not secure in expressing my freedom of the press. "The existence of National Security permits the very liberal freedom of the press the United States already permits, in comparison to most other countries in the world who would threaten the security of the US. If National Security was nullified as a result of unrestricted freedom of the press, the relatively liberal forms of freedom of the press that the United States would be forfeited in exchange for no freedom of the press at all. This is what my argument alleges. P1. In all cases, Freedom of the Press is prioritized over National Security. P2. In one or more cases, information is leaked using this prioritization that leads to the downfall of the sanctity of the nation. P3. Either the nation is inevitably destroyed or invaded by a malicious force using this informationP4. Freedom of the press is eliminated or further restricted, making P1 redundant. If Freedom of the Press was to be valued over National Security without exception, total freedom of the press could not exist. Permitting the valuing of National Security over Freedom of the Press in some cases (even if some corruption entails that) allows more freedom of the press to exist than the alternative. For the above reason(s), Vote Con. ==================Thanks, Pro, for an intriguing debate. May the best argument win!