The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

My opponent first claims that the now ineffective types of propaganda would no longer be used. Instead, we would just have the same few types of propaganda, but more often than before. The big problem here is that people would notice this big of a change. Because we are so used to how things are, people would notice a difference if the Government took away rights and started spewing propaganda, the same messages over and over. This tactic only works on those who have been raised without their liberty. My opponent is suggesting changing so much, and expecting people not to notice something's wrong. This is foolishness. And now to respond to this: "2. This is not hypocritical because as I said we should give up our rights for a short time to help give others these rights forever" First, I showed using the definition of hypocrite that that is indeed hypocritical. I did this last round. My opponent offered no valid counterargument. Not that that matters. The important thing here is people would indeed see that we're being hypocritical - a nation that views liberty in the highest regard suddenly throwing those notions out the window as soon as it's supposedly helpful. Which it isn't even. Next, on the anti-war side of propaganda, let's see what my opponent has to say. He said: "My opponent claims that people will still get the information, but look to what I said in my last round how people watching the news during the Vietnam war caused the protest so if they didn't have this information then there would have been less anti-war action. " As I have been stressing, especially last round, the news is not the only place people go for information, especially when they notice that the freedom of the press has been tainted, making the news unreliable. People spread their views themselves. I made the argument that the internet and normal person-to-person communications would be the primary outlet through which anti-war propaganda would flow. My opponent did not argue against it. "The next problem with my opponent's argument is that the government can control the things he is talking about, i. e. they can take a blog post down or remove a video of the internet. Now while they can't control each person this will not have a large effect because without the power to act they will not be able to convince other people to join their movement. " The government does not have control over the internet. Without server access, they cannot take down blogs or take down videos. MY opponent is advocating that the government do more and more preposterous and unnecessary things every round. First, they just took away the right to protest. Then, privately owned press gets shut down if they make anti-war statements. Then, they try and take control of the entire internet? I'm sorry, but the internet would not stand for this. Not the internet I know, at least. People would create bots to post their messages all over. People would shut down government websites. People would once again be pissed off at the government for dragging their liberties through the mud. The government, in this case, would do even more to spread anti-war propaganda just by censoring it. Once again, a people who have their liberty and value it as many Americans do are not going to stand for something like this. This will piss them off far more than any unjustified war ever would. What my opponent is urging the government to do could lead to an uprising. A wise man once said, "A people should not be afraid of its government, a government should be afraid of its people. " Right now, our government has very little to fear, since it has not infringed on our rights. Our government would become the very thing we are so often trying to eliminate. It is not worth it, even if military power was marginally increased. However, military power isn't increased. People who know freedom will have their voices heard, through whatever outlet they can, often at any cost. Not only this, but the military would see the grave oversteppings of the government. Many would decide the government is no longer fighting for, and would go AWOL. Many would feel the need to do something to get the people their freedom back, perhaps by going on strike until the government re-granted our rights. Many would simply suffer from severe loss of morale. Many who would have joined would join no longer. I believe I have shown that my opponent's plan displays a complete lack of foresight. It may seem intuitively correct at a glance, but the unintended consequences end up causing even greater poroblems than existed originally. Not only that, but it's simply not fair. There's a reason we have rights. Fairness and liberty have value on their own, even from a utilitarian standpoint. For great justice, take off every zig.