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

-This now becomes very simple... is there anything worth regulating... and the answer is YES. If you vote for anything in this round, vote for why we have FIVE (count them) FIVE levels of governmental security. The only reason that the Con would have you thinking toward his side of this debate right now is because you don't know what kind of things you don't know. All that I want to do within this debate is to extend that sort of security to the government. Recently, Heath Ledger died and guess how his parents found out. ON TV... sure this example doesn't have much to do with any national security, but it does show the pain the media is capable of, and it does show how quickly they are able to display news capable of hurting people and capable of showing news that should be held off until it is at least safe to reveal. Just think about this for a while. Let's just say that for some strange reason that the media is able to go through every thing inside the white house and are able to go through everything that our government knows. Now, imagine if they were able to report that to not only the United States, but also everyone who reads it including our enemies and our friends. Within this debate, all I am saying is that there ought to be some regulations to be able to stop something from getting out that could hurt society and by the definition of the debate, promote and protect, national security. -Now let's hit a few specific case and refutation points. Onto the "knowledge is power" arguments. Basically what I have to say here is that when knowledge is the most powerful and most dangerous, is when everyone has it. No I'm not contending that we should start burning books, and no I am not contending that we should stop having school. All that I am saying is that the government should be able to make certain regulations to keep the society's best interest. Information such as where troops will be activated to and when they will be there, and information such as us using some sort of military force in a country sometime, and maybe even information on when (if) the world was going to end, because honestly, if we were to know something like that too soon, then EVERYTHING would crash and everyone's life would be worse than if they held on to that secret until there were only a few weeks left. Which is another thing, these regulation don't have to have a lasting effect. 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. Onto where he talks about the "unclear definition" of the regulations and how the government could interpret it any way they wanted it. Against that, there is something here that I would like to say. It is the difference between guarenteed pain and possible pain. 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. Moving onto where he talks about my examples. Basically, look back to my introduction of this speech... I offer many examples and he says that (specifically on the world ending one) that he would want to know. Yes, me too, however, I would not want to know too soon because once everyone knew, the economy and everything we know would collapse, and when it collapsed, I would want to be able to enjoy myself, but that is something that you would not be able to do if there was still months until it happened. I know that this is an extreme example, but it still does show how regulations can have a positive effect. The last part of his last speech basically talks about all of the corruption that governments could have. Against this I have to say sure, they can be corrupt, but not as corrupt as the media. Basically to off this argument I have to ask my opponent to answer this one single question. What would you do in this situation... 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 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.