Freedom of the Press ought to be valued over National Security

No government ought to be without censors; and where press is free, none ever will. -Thomas Jefferson It is because I agree with Thomas Jefferson that I must negate the resolution resolved: That national security ought to be valued above freedom of the press. Now to define some key terms. Definitions: National Security- The responsibility of the government to protect the lives of its citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic. Freedom of the press-The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to gather, publish, and distribute information and ideas without government restriction; this right encompasses freedom from prior restraints on publication and freedom from censorship. Liberty: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. Infringements upon essential freedoms in the pursuit of safety and security betray priorities contrary to the fundamental values of democratic nations, and often fails to result in improved security. It is for this reason that I negate today"s resolution My value is Liberty while my value criterion is the protection of 1st amendment freedoms, seeing as it is utterly imperative to have a government system that is entirely transparent to their citizens as to what they are doing. If our government is allowed to listen to all of our phone conversations, track our location, and read our e-mails, let's face it! People may choose to sport middle age technology once again if this absurdity continues. The primary problem with this, is that the world was incredibly short on carrier pigeons last I heard. So let's move now to my three contentions. C1: The Constitution. The Constitution clearly specified how our government was to operate, without exception. Freedom of the press was placed in the first amendment because they deemed it most valuable. And if the government is allowed to take this essential freedom away, who is to say they won't take away another. The constitution clearly stated: "congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press." Not "whenever the government happens to have a whim that they don't want publicized." As a popular joke summarized: A man walked into a library and asked for a copy of the Constitution, the librarian then replied "I'm sorry, we don't carry periodicals." The constitution was put in place to keep the government from becoming what it wasn't meant to be. And freedom of the press is arguably the most influential right in keeping the government accountable. Which brings me to my second contention: C2: The removal of freedom of the press inspires tyranny. In keeping the government accountable, freedom of the press hinders the government's ability to do other than what it was elected to do. As Vladimir Lenin said, quote "It is freedom of the press, and freedom of the press alone, that halts our headlong course into socialism." Where freedom of the press is in place, tyranny is impossible For more than 215 years, the United States has managed to flourish in the absence of any federal legislation directly prohibiting the press from publishing government secrets. Freedom of the press is a principal pillar of a free government; and when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Freedom of the press served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish without license their grievances against public policy or conduct of public officials. One of the distasteful things found under the common law was the government practice of criminalizing or shielding itself through requiring license to publish of any criticism it felt made people dissatisfied with their government. Certain rights should be limited, such as the right to drive 95 miles an hour in a school zone with no seat belt, but not freedom of the press, because freedom of the press is foundational in keeping a government from overstepping their bounds. C3: Liberty is the preeminent value and is upheld by freedom of the press. If we valued life over liberty, this country would not be alive today, Our founders seceded from Great Britain, one of the most nationally secure countries, in favor of liberty. By definition, National security values life, while Freedom of the press values liberty. As Patrick Henry so eloquently stated, "Give me liberty or give me death." If the government is allowed to define a national security emergency, then it will do whatever it wants during that time in the name of national security. For example, In the case of Frank Olson; This man was unknowingly given a dose of LSD, a hallucinogenic, in a failed mind control experiment administered by the CIA just 4 days before "accidentally" plunging out of a window to his death 3 stories below. All of this information was recently discovered because the CIA restricted freedom of the press in the name of national security. If the general public knew about this while it was going on, they would have expressed their disapproval and prevented any further actions. In conclusion, freedom of the press is the most important right in a nation because of the freedom and equality it brings a nation and its population. While national security, when valued above freedom of the press, promotes a corrupt and overpowering government.