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

I do not concede that because the government has the right to say something, information will always be freely available. My opponent makes no effort to tell us why this is so. He asserts information and speech exist in concert with one another. Newsflash - if you go around telling people everything you know, you're weird.It's clear that my opponent did not refer back to my definition in making his argument. He ignored that speech is a right, not a responsibility. In his last round, my opponent stated that free speech was the "free speech means free flow of information on all fronts." You can't win a point by redefining a definition you agreed to so that it makes your point a tautology. The truth is that just because I have the right to say information (freedom of speech) doesn't mean I have to say information when questioned (freedom of information).Even if you, the voter, think that people who have free speech cannot keep secrets (I know I can, although I am still free to speak), bear in mind that this is a debate. My opponent needs to give you that causal link for any of his rebuttals to stand. As he has not done so, and he will not do so, he cannot win.He also contradicts his own agreed definition of national security - "any external threats to national citizens" - by bringing up the Egypt example and equating it to New York. It is my understanding that New York is still part of the United States. Therefore this would be an internal threat, as opposed to an external one. In that way I would humbly remind him that this is beyond the scope of our present debate, and should not be relevant to votes.I will now go on to answer the relevant contentions my opponent has continued to argue:1. Can governments be trusted to arbitrate free speech?Just because I give a reason of "national security" does not mean national security is actually threatened. That's what Clinton and Nixon taught us. My opponent rightly asserts that national security was not at stake in these cases, but wrongly asserts that this is irrelevant to the debate. It's absolutely relevant. As wrong as free speech can be restricted, national security can be given as the reason, and there are no checks and balances on the system (and how can there be, if the national security depends on it) then we are blindly trusting governments to restrict speech when necessary. The problem is, they also restrict speech when it suits them. That's a tangible harm that arises directly from my opponent's position. Therefore, it cannot be simply dismissed as irrelevant.He also dismisses my claim that "just because a few minorities want to hurt a given nation doesn't mean we should assume a given person will." He says that these minorities "may desire to cause harm" and that "the results can be disastrously catastrophic." I thank my opponent for proving my point. The same logic can be applied to his claim that, in my own paraphrase, just because a minority abuse the system doesn't mean we should assume a given politician will. I love the way my opponent is debating this with himself.2. Are there any national security harms to knowing the truth?Okay, finally a response to Wikileaks! My opponent notes that nothing critical was revealed. This is saying that having free speech will reveal everything critical, unlike what Wikileaks did. He is therefore, again, making an argument based on his faulty self-made tautological definition. Nothing more needs to be said.3. Will the truth be told?My opponent explicitly contradicts my definition as if this wins him the point. Nope. You have to engage with my point using the definition you agreed to. I do accept anybody has the right to keep secrets, but I also think they have a right to speak freely. Those rights are not mutually exclusive.In this debate, I have offered countless solid arguments, and the response from con has been the same on almost every one. He claims that if I let people say the truth, they'll rock on up to Al Qaeda's den and tell them all about it. Of course people should have the freedom to do so. But my opponent's claim that this is what they'll do has not been substantiated. I remind my opponent that this round is his last chance to tell voters why free speech means public knowledge. I hope to be enlightened.