National Security Ought to be Valued Above Freedom of Press

First off, I would like to say that I chose this side of the arguement as a challenge for myself. This is not necessarily my point of view. Also, I will not tolerate rude language. This debate will consist of 2 rounds. In the first you may give your speech, 2 you may rebutt. Onto my speech: At first glance the 1st Amendment appears to be written in clear terms. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of... the press." However, there are underlying questions: Does freedom of the press protect the right to publish defamatory material? If not, can the government prohibit such publications? A majority of the Founding Fathers adhered to the view that equated the free press with a doctrine of no prior restraint. This doctrine provided that the publication of something could not be suppressed by the government before it was released to the public. In the seminal case New York Times vs. Sullivan, Supreme Court extended 1st Amendment protection for print and media. In NYT vs. US, the Supreme Court stated that it was necessary to present 'clear and present danger' of a national security breach. The Department of Justice had sought to prevent the publication of classified material that revealed the government's secrecy and deception. If this classified material, also known as the Pentagon Papers, had threatened U.S. troops by revealing their movement or location, the Supreme Court stated, publication would not have been permitted. In the 1970's the government told us that our national security was at stake when the New York Times and Washington Post started publishing secret Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court disagreed, and today it would be hard to argue that publication hurt our war efforts. One of the reasons it's hard to find instances where our free press did damage national security is that the press has been pretty responsible in curtailing its reporting when the government claims that publication could do real harm. Journalists are citizens too, and they understand that reporting on sensitive national security information requires discretion, even if they sometimes come out in a different place. The press also knows that public opinion would turn on it very quickly if there were incidents where reckless reporting caused real peril. There may not be many good examples of the press endangering our national security, but there are some well-known times when our national security might have been better served if there had been more leaks and the press had reported more of the story. The most famous is the New York Times reporting on the Bay of Pigs invasion before it happened. The White House intervened to tone down the story, and President Kennedy later called, saying that he wished the press would have resisted the pressure. It's understandable that government officials like to keep things secret, but we need news to be presented to a neutral judge who can consider national security in a broader context. The first amendment isn't at odds with national security; it's one of the surest ways of protecting it. In June, Al Qaeda had an online magazine with instructions on bomb making. The good guys secretly hacked into the online magazine and changed the instructions so that the bombs would fail to explode. Over a few beers, someone told the story to a member of the press. The public's right to know. Freedom of the press. Both important ascpects of our government. But, somehow, during the War on Terror, being so open that your enemy learns how to kill you because freedom of the press and transparancy give them that information is just plain dumb. During World War II, the US went to extreames to keep the location and date of the attack on Normady a secret. What would have happened if Private Smith or an Associated Press reporter substituted his own judgement for Eisnhower's and leaked the invasion to the world? What if we had transparancy and told Osama Bin Ladaen we knew where he was hiding and that we were coming to kill him? The person who leaked the information about the phony bomb endangered national security. Private Bradley Manning released over 700,000 official and classified state and defense documents, argueing that the public had a right to know. He endangered national security. The Associated Press reporter who wrote the story about the US foiling an airline bombing attempt prevented that covert operation from continuing to stop future bombings. He endangered national security. Why should we allow these people to endanger our country? The first amendment actually DOES protect our national security. Reporters realize that there are dangers to reporting sensitvie materials and make sure that what they post doesn't harm the country. Their job is to protect and inform. National security protects our people and should be valued above freedom of the press.