That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

The resolution is as follows: That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security My opponent has said: "The government, just like everyone else, should have the right to remain silent." In conceding this point, he agrees that the government should have the right to keep information from its people -even at the expense of free speech and the free pursuit of knowledge. The resolution we are debating is wether free speech should be restricted for purposes of national security. The government's "right" to "remain silent" and a free flow of information (free speech) cannot simultaneously exist. As such, CON has met its burden of proof and PRO has conceded. My opponent does continue, however: The issue my opponent now tries to raise is that the government: "should not limit people's right to speak if they so choose." My opponent attempts to invoke an issue that is not called into question here. I never said that government should be able to silence people in the name of national security. However, since my opponent has brought it up, I will refer to the words of Olliver Wendel Holmes, in Shenck v. US. "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Shenck was overruled and in this particular case we now know that communism wasn't a real threat to US national security, but might something else be? Could the possibility exist that limiting free speech would not only be vital to national security, but to the preservation of our nation as a whole? Indeed it could. The world has watched the turmoil that has unfolded in Egypt and across the middle east as riots propagated by social networking has led to the destabilization of nations. While Egypt may turn out to be better off for those riots, if such a situation were to come to pass in New York or Washington, would it not be beneficial to shut off the internet? That would limit free speech -and in the name of national security. My opponent has spoke of "rights" but, I would humbly remind him that no person enjoys the right to cause chaos -to shout fire in a crowded theater. I would furthermore remind my opponent that freedom of information and freedom of speech exist in concert with one another. One cannot exist without the other. Where one is limited, so is the other. Onto my opponent's initial questions: R1) I have conceded nothing that goes to the ultimate issue, which I remind my opponent is "that free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security." While my opponent's superfluous employment of pronouns has resulted in a rather confusing rebuttal, I will try to have a go at what I gather is the core of his argument. In the examples my opponent cited, national security wasn't the heart of the matter being challenged. Nixon, in the Watergate scandal (the example my opponent cited) claimed executive privilege to not release tapes of recorded conversations. While Nixon did argue that national security was a justification to not release the tapes in question, executive privilege was the cause to withhold them. Wether or not the tapes should have been released is not for us to settle. We are here to debate the resolution. As I have said earlier, information in the wrong hands can cause harm. It doesn't matter that only a small minority of extremists may desire to cause harm (Al Qaeda is certainly not a majority anywhere it operates), but they possess both the means and the desire to cause harm to the western world. Clearly, when terrorists are in possession of sensitive information the results can be disastrously catastrophic. R2) Wikileaks did not open the floodgates of classified informational retention, it only scratched the surface. It is fortunate that the information that was released did not result in any horror that made the news, but the true impact of the release of that information cannot be known unless you have the full picture (which we do not). The information released by Wikileaks was primarily diplomatic cables of no pressing significance, the information did not contain anything that would or could jeopardize national security. That is not to say that if all classified information were made public however, that the consequences would be the same. My opponent naively holds fast to his belief that if terrorists are freely given the choice to cause harm or not cause harm, that they will choose not to cause harm. In the real world, nothing could be farther from the truth. R3) I remind my opponent that free speech means free flow of information on all fronts. If information is to flow freely (because everyone is equally entitled to it), then no one can have the right to remain silent. My opponent accepts that the government has the right to keep secrets from its people (by keeping silent). As such not only do my points stand but my opponent has conceded agreement to the argument I have raised. In conclusion, because national interests are always important (as my opponent has said) and because the government has a right to remain silent (as my opponent has also said) it is justifiable that the government limit informational flow by means of a classification system. It is also justifiable for the government to prevent mass chaos where possible in the interest of national security, as I mentioned earlier. Because I have proven that there are some cases where government suppression of free speech is justified and because my opponent accepts this on a conceptual level, victory must be afforded to con.