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

In a country where there is freedom of speech and press, then there should be no regulation or forced censorship. That is my first point. My second is that you still have only given examples of what could constitute for national security, and you yourself admit that it's possible for government to abuse its newfound power and authority. "You have to assume that most governments (at least the ones where a power like this was granted) would care for their people. Therefore, you have to assume that these regulations would at least some what, help the society. " And therein lies the problem. If we are to assume, we would have to live in a perfect world where your theory can be purely practiced without worry in order to be right. There are countless examples throughout history of world leaders abusing their powers ad flexing control over the people; even in America, there are cases of Presidents disobeying basic tenants of the Constitution and even suspending civil liberties, for the good of society. "No I'm not contending that we should start burning books" I understand that, I never said that you were. I was merely stating that by allowing this basic form of censorship, we open the doors for government to gain more power to do similar things. In fact, during WWI in America, the Red Scare was essentially a witch hunt and a book burning for the good of national security. Censorship in any form, no matter how small, has the ability to give way to more severe and widespread censorship. "In other words, if you look closely to ALL of my examples, NONE of them are things that we won't find out eventually, they should only be held off a little bit longer until it is in EVERYONES best interest to release the information. " But how does someone else have the right to define for me when it is in my best interest to know things? "Yes, me too, however, I would not want to know too soon" However, I would. There is one of my biggest issues, because I would want to know when the discovers found out, or relatively soon after. I feel it is in my best interest to know if the world is going to end soon and I feel it is best for me to know immediately. Because you talk of comfort, but what if I wish to spend the last remaining days traveling to see the places I never visited or even to make amends with family I haven't been in touch with. I know this is extreme, but if the world were going to end, then I would want to be able to make sure I would die with no regrets. And if my government gave me a month's notice, then I don't think I'd have as many opportunities to do so. "because once everyone knew, the economy and everything we know would collapse" Can you prove that? "Against this I have to say sure, they can be corrupt, but not as corrupt as the media. " You admit that government's can be corrupt, therefore you agree that there is a flaw with your theory. Because in order for your regulations to work properly there would have to be a lack of corruption. And for another thing, I do not see how that refutes my statements on government corruption. "we are invading a country, and the media gets a hold of where and when we are going in. .. would you give a regulation to say that they can not release that information or would you let them because of your great freedom of the press? " In a country where there is freedom of the press or where the government has not been granted the authority to regulate media by the people, yes I would allow them to report that, if they wished. The point I am trying to make to you is that I believe wholeheartedly that governments have to honor social contract, and if they do not have that power, then they have no right to use it. The simple answer to your question is yes, I would honor the freedom of press and allow them to release the information. It is not a matter of what they can do but what they should do. I can almost guarantee that your response will be regarding how lives will be lost, and yes that is lamentable. But what about the victims of censorship and national security? People have been killed by governments for their silence, they have been killed for holding "radical" ideas. And this was all done in the name of national security. I do not believe you can use that blanket term because it can be misused too easily and for horrendous things. While you may think of those soldiers who may be killed, I think of the millions and millions of people being subjugated by their government in order to "protect" them. "In the end, the media is capable of many things. They deserve freedom of the press, but NOT when they endanger other people which is why the government deserves the right to regulate the media so please vote Pro. " In the same way that the government is capable of many things. I think they deserve the power to protect and serve the people, but not when they endanger our basic human rights and ignore their social contracts.