Are you fired up? Experience 8th Grade Global History at King--a thematic approach exploring the role of the United States in the world
Friday, April 13, 2012
Freedom of the Press
Should the press be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security? Whose interest is more important--the citizen's right to know, or the government's interest in protecting society?
I think that the press should be estricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security. I feel that it is mainly the government's interest in protecting the societ, because even if you release the article only in that certain country, other people from othere areas/countries could read it and give it out to people who might want to do a country harm. Although the citizen does have a right to know what's going on, in someinstances it is better if they don't know.
I think the press should be limited in releasing information about our national security because whatever they release information on, the whole world could be seeing this. Meaning that terrorist groups could be learning our war tactics or learning information about the government. In the end, the government's right to know is much more important because the government is trying to help protect our society. In telling the people our secrets we would be broadcasting it to the world. For example, if the press wanted to give out a store on how the United States trains our soldiers, it would not be smart to put that out for the whole world to know.
In my opinion, the press should be restricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security because they're trying to protect us and if the media gets a hold of the information certain things can be exposed or leaked which could jeopardize our safety. I believe that the government’s interest in protecting society is more important although the citizens right to know is also important because if we know a certain town was in jeopardy we would be more aware because we don’t want an event like 9/11 to ever happen again.
Upholding the protection that the First Amendment provides regarding Freedom of the Press is very important. The only limitation that I support regarding national security would be against publishing confidential information that could threaten current operations at war time. We wouldn't want our enemies to know our war strategies because that would place our soldiers in danger. Freedom of the Press is very important because it helps to prevent politicians and the military from getting too much power. The US public has a right to know what the officials they elected are doing, especially if it is something immoral or unethical. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled, in New York Times vs. US, that the United States must demonstrate that a "clear and present dander" exists in order to issue a restraining order against the press on issues that may effect national security. I agree with this decision because it protects the First Amendment and helps to force our military and political leaders to act and operate in moral and ethical ways and prevents tyranny, otherwise, it could be printed on the front page of every newspaper!
The press should be limited in reporting information that could interfere with the National Government because of the peoples' lives that could be in danger because of the leaked information. If the reporters did share information that was not really supposed to be heard at the time it could screw up something big that could happen. Or some one in the military, for example, could now be in danger because of the reporters mistake. I feel that the interest of both sides are more important than the other in some situations. However, the government's protection of society is more important because they have many secret operations.
I think that the press should be restricted in releasing information about our national security. Important information about the government could be leaked to other people which could put us in danger. I believe the government's intrest in protecting society is more important because the government is only trying to help us. Reporting information is just giving out all our secrets for the world to know. Citizens right to know is also very important but overall the governments intrst in protecting society is more important.
I believe the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. I think this because once released, the hole world would have this restricted information in there hands and could use it against the United States. Also it could put our veterans in more danger than they already are because what if the enemy gets this classified information, they could know when and where we are going to attach, where we get our ammunition from, and most importantly, where we are stationed. Overall, the governments interest in protecting society is more important than the citizens right to know because the government may contain some dangerous information that if handed to the wrong person, it could lead to destruction.
In my opinion I think that there should be a limit to what the press can print, if it is a concern with national security. I think this because once the New York Times came across a to secret government document, and wanted to publish it. The document contained troop movements. The New York times argued that they had the right to the freedom of the press which stated that the newspapers could print what ever they wanted to. I believe that this is an issue because our enemy countries could read this, and know our troop movements if we were at war with them. National security is more important than citizens having the right to know because, if the government let out all of tit;s secrets then our we wold be transparent to our enemy countries.
I think that the government has the right to restrict information when it is released it to the press. I think it is in the government's interest to protect society in only knowing limited information. The government does not want the country to be blind on what they do completely, but they need to have some private information. I f the government gave out all their secrets to the public, then people from other countries might use it against America.
I feel that the government has the right to restrict the press's rights if it is a matter of national security. Society's curiosity often overcome's us especially those who may have family members over sea fighting for our country. However, if information about our troops or plans gets out into the public then those family members would be in great danger. That is why the government's interest's may be greater then ours in this situation.
I think that the government has no right to restrict freedom of the press. The government should be able to let the people mostly everything (even though they do not). The reason Freedom of the press was put to use in our government, was so that the government could not restrict what the press has to say. The right to petition and freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with freedom of the press, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If the government starts putting restrictions on Freedom of the press, it will then affect other freedoms the citizens of the United States are entitled to, therefore causing a major issue. National Security issues must be discussed with the American people to know what there government is facing. If the American government starts telling the people the issues they are dealing with, it would create a more trustworthy relationship between the people and the government.
I think that the press should be limited to what they say about people because it can be offensive to others and it shares information that the people are not supposed hear. If the press is aloud to say whatever they hear, something could be leaked about our government and terrorists could use the information to attack us. We would want to prevent any attacks from terrorist to keep the U.S. safe.
The press should be limited in reporting information that could interfere with the National Government because of peoples' lives could be in danger from the known information. If reporters did share information that was not supposed to be heard at then could lead to a big court case that would end up giving the government stress. Or, someone's live could be in danger. I think if that the government did report information that should be private they should have the consequences. Although, i feel that it is important for the citizens to know what is going on. It does leed to information being leaked to the wrong people, but they should just not publish important national security information.
In my opinion, the press has to be restricted from publishing information and files that would threaten our national security. If the press were allowed to publish information that would compromise our national security our enemies would get their hands on it. If our enemies get their hands on it, then they could learn our strategies and opinions on a war. If they learned our strategies, they would be able to defeat us in the war.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information that interferes with national security because the government's interest in protecting society is more important. Although the citizens have a right to know, it could put their safety at risk and the government is supposed to protect it's citizens. If the press released the information involving national security, the rest of the world could find out and it creates a very dangerous situation.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security because even though people reserve the right to know. It is more important to keep the information confidential because people in certain areas people could get angry and riot, and enemy forces could get this information and figure out our war strategies.
I think that the citizens have a right to know all information that the government can share. If the government does not want this information to get around they can not allow people to post that information online so other countries can not capture it and use it against us.
I think that both parties in this situation have very important roles in this scenario. However, i do believe that the government should have the right to limit the press to the extent that the newspaper, website, or whatever form of publication the information is released from. If the press is able to trespass into the government's decision making process, the extremely exclusive ideas shared by government officials is exposed to not only the public, but also to the entire planet, especially when the news is exposed via the internet. The danger with that involves military strategies being exposed to enemies, politician ideas, and other confidential things that the public does not need to know. That being said, the citizens do have the right to know about what goes on with out country. However, in this situation, if the two sides were to be balanced out, in my mind, the government has the more important interest in this situation.
The press should be limited in reporting information that interferers with national security. The government's interest in protecting society is more important than a citizen's right to know. The governments protection can jeopardize American citizens if national security is leaked. Their are many wrongs that can come out of loosing national protection over America. For example, America's enemies would have a advantage over us knowing our tactics and could attack us at anytime. Although, the citizens should have a right to know, it would not be a smart move broadcasting the armies plans to the world.
I think the press should have some rules that restrict the press to some extent. However, I do think that the citizens should have most of the say in what should be printed. The government should not "control" what gets printed or what should not get printed. If there were no boundaries, the government would have to worry about the the press is printing and how it would affect America today.
I believe that the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national society for the prior reason of protecting society. It could be dangerous for society to know information that was supposed to remain secret, or for society to know information about other officials, such as someone in our military, that could potentially put them in danger. Although citizens rights to knowing information is very important, the government's right to protect it is more critical in the overall interest to protect society. Putting critical information into the wrong hands could leave to severe damage to our country.
I believe that the press should have a limit when they report information if it interferes with national security.I feel this way because it is in the governments interest to protect the people. If information was put out that was not shouldn't, it could hurt many people. I think that it is more important that that the government protect society then the citizens right to know.
I think that the press should have certain restrictions when reporting information if it interferes with our national security. There are possibilities that citizens may take that information and use it against the country. The government is supposed to protect us, but there are cases when the public should know about what's going on in the country.
I think the press should be limited to reporting information of it interferes with national security because I believe that the safety of society and the public is more important then the knowledge of them knowing the information. If the government wanted the citizens to know about information, then the government would let the people know, but in some cases, the government doesn't want the people to know. In some cases it is better for information to be a secret than putting danger to the lives of people.
I think that press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security because the government rules. I understand that a lot of citizens would be anxious and want to know what's going on, however, possible rumors could potentially put the country in severe danger. The government would never want to hurt us or put us in danger. Therefore, we would all be better off to let the government resolve the situation. To sum it up, the press would be much better off to let the government figure out the situation first and then publish and release that information.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information that interferes with national security, because its releasing private information, that should not be published. Even though the citizens, do have the right to know whats going, the governments interest in protecting society is more important. Its is more important, because if the government was having a problem, and didn't want people to know, because they didn't want to worry, than it is really not releasing to the press.
I believe that there should be restrictions for freedom of the press if it interferes with national security. It only takes minutes for news to get onto the internet when, at that point, anyone in the world get view it. If news like U.S. military plans or secret military technology were to get out, spies from other countries and America's enemies could use it against the U.S. American's say it is our right to know everything that the media is reporting, but American's are not the only ones who are going to see or hear it.
The press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Our own safety should be prioritized before media often meant for personal benefit. If information classified as "sensitive" was to be reported and published to the public, it could produce various forms of tension. Tension could arise between the U.S. and external countries if these countries were to gain information that they could use to their advantage against us. Sensitive information in the hands of terrorist could also be catastrophic. While freedom of the press is very important because it enables discussions and opposing opinions and protects first amendment rights, protecting lives is of greater importance.
There should be restrictions put on freedom of the press if it interferes with National Security because the government wants to keep it private for a reason. Government information can sometimes be extremely confidential and if it gets out to the public it could be used as a weapon against America. The government information should be kept confidential because if no one knows about it but the government then the public should have nothing to fear because it is kept secret. If American enemies find out about about the information then America could be put in jeopardy.
I think that the freedom of the press should only be limited when it puts people at the risk of harm. If you could print articles involving national security then people would be at risk. The government trying to keep us safe is in my opinion more important than freedom of the press. For example if information was printed on United States soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan than it would put them at risk. So therefore it is more important to keep us safe then have absolute freedom of the press.
I believe that the press should be limited in reporting content that interferes with national security. I think that the interest of the government protecting society is much more important than the citizen's right to know. My main reason for believing this is because another government or terrorist group could read all of this important information and use it against the United States of America in a harmful way. Even though the citizens deserve the right to know I still believe that if releasing the information could cause harm to the United States than it is better to keep it confidential and a secret.
The press should be restricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Granted, American citizens have a right to know about all decisions made regarding their country, however, there is no way to ensure that such information does not get leaked to other countries. If this happens, it is quite possible that the information might backfire, and result in harming the US, as opposed to helping them.
i think that the government can limit information that interferes to the national security. The government should limit this because it can effect the entire country by letting the public know what is going on the the national security. It is more important for the government to protect the security then to tell the public because it can effect the public also.
The press should not be allowed to share information that could threaten national security or the citizens of the United States because lives could be lost, and it is not worth it to put people's lives at steak just because of a newspaper story. Of coarse, every citizen has the right to know what is happening in the country, but me knowing what is happening in the country, it is not more important than someone's life
I think that if the information interferes with national security, it should be restricted. Some government information could harm our country if exposed to the world. Even if people want to know what their country is doing, information can easily be exposed to potential enemy. If knowledge means potential destruction, maybe it is better not to know.
I think the governments interest in protecting society is more important than the citizen's right to know because if a headline comes up giving away anything that can be used against the USA in a potentially harmful way, the US should be able to limit the press in the case of national security.
I feel that the government has the right to limit the press if they feel that what the press is printing could have a serious risk on our national security. As a citizen I feel that the government's interest in protecting our national security is more important than out personal interests. It is more important to make sure our country is safe than the citizens right to know information.
I think if the information interferes with national security then the government should not give that information away until they know it's safe. Anything that is out in the open in America is known in other countries too, which might make an unsafe environment in the U.S. Even though, I think American citizens have the right to know information from the government, some things need to be kept quiet to keep a good society.
I think that if Freedom of the Press interferes with National Security, the government should not release it to the public. This is because letting the public know this information could be dangerous for the country. For example, what if someone betrayed the country by giving the information to another country? The results of this would be catastrophic. Therefore, if the national security of the country is in danger, the government should not release the information to the public.
Press most definitely should be limited if it interferes with national security. Even though it is the people's right to knowing, In the Supreme Court Case, New York Times v. United States, this was an issue. President Nixon wanted to stop the New York Times from publishing confidential articles about the United States actions in Vietnam. Unlike my opinion, the Supreme Court found in favor of the New York Times. If it is a matter of national security, what the people do not know cannot hurt them.
I do believe in the freedom of the press but there are should be limitations on what to sat in regards to national security. For example if a person could be asking a solider wether or not they are attacking tonight. the person would sat yes but that nobody can find out about it. If the enemies somehow get this information we will lose. The government should not allow this because it will cot us loses in wars. The government is trying to protect our country. In order to protect our country the government must put limitations on the freedom of the press.
i believe that it is not right of the press to give out information to society regarding government secret informatioon. one main reason why i believe this is becasue it poses a threat of security to america. and also the information could be used against america. if the press does not release just this information our country would be better off. and there are more advantages for society if they do not know this information
I say that yes, the press should be restricted in repoting the information if it's classified and dangerous if leaked to the public. It's because the government wants to protect us, so that if these were leaked terrorists could use them to theirn advantage.
I believe that the press should be restricted if it's a matter of national security. In addition, i feel that if it puts the lives of citizens in danger it should be printed at a more appropriate time. Also, I think that the citizens rights are more important but also is there safety. Lastly, if the content of the information can result in harmful situations i believe that it should be printed at a later date.
I believe that it is more important for the people to know what is going over national secruity. If the people dont know what is going on than no one will know what is happening except our leaders. It is our right to know what is happening and it no one can tell us what we can know and what we can't.
I think that the Press should never be limited. There is no real way to tell that a news paper article is a threat to our national security. The need of free speech to a successful democracy far outweighs a possible threat to our nations security. It is the governments duty to not allow information to be leaked, not the press' duty to not publish information freely. If this were the case, we would not be living in a stable democracy. In the grand scheme of things the free press should and will always prevail.
I think that the press should be restricted from reporting info that could harm national security. I think that the governments biggest interest is in protecting their people and letting the press print something that harms national security is not protecting their people. What the citizens don't know wont hurt them. Although we have the right to know whats going national security is more important
Press should not be limited just because of national security, because even though it may pose a threat to our country and it might be a big deal, the people still deserve to know what the government is doing at all times. Besides, if the government has to keep something from the public, why are they doing it in the first place? So people have the right to publish what they want others to know. As Thomas Jefferson said: If I had to choose between a government with no newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate to prefer the latter.
The press should not report information that would put our nation at risk. However, if the information is available, the public has a right to know the information and how the government plans to protect our society. If however, the nation is at war, information that is important to our security should definitely be kept secret.
I believe that the press should be limited to reporting some information that is extremely sensitive to the Country and threatens national security. I believe that the press should only be restricted if the information puts the citizens of the U.S. in danger. The people in the U.S. have the right to know what is happening but i think it is in everyones greatest interest to keep all the people of our country safe
I think that the press should be limited in giving out info about our national security because news gets around very quickly. Also, I think its the governments concern in protecting us society than us citizens knowing what is going on. You never know if a terrorist is reading it and just one sentence makes them mad so they plan an attack.
i belive the press should be restricted in publishing information that threatens national security. It could one damage the U.S society, two put many of their soldiers at risk, and three could damage the U.S. All in all, i believe that it is not in the right mind, and should not be allowed in america.
I believe that the press should be restricted in giving out information about national security. When important information is leaked, it could potentially put us in danger by putting it in the wrong hands. Handing out information is just giving out all our secrets for the world to know. These thing are kept secret for a reason, to keep us safe. Citizens right to know is also very important, but to a certain extent. Although, overall the governments intrest in protecting society is more important.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Even though I would want to know, I think the government protecting the society is much more important. If there is important info released there can be many conflicts that can arouse and prevent whatever the info is from happening or being accomplished.
I think that there should be a limitation for the safety of national security. I also agree that the people of America should know what their government is doing, but also their health and safety is more important. If other countries get a hold of some information, it could be a threat to our country and national security.
56 comments:
I think that the press should be estricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security. I feel that it is mainly the government's interest in protecting the societ, because even if you release the article only in that certain country, other people from othere areas/countries could read it and give it out to people who might want to do a country harm. Although the citizen does have a right to know what's going on, in someinstances it is better if they don't know.
I think the press should be limited in releasing information about our national security because whatever they release information on, the whole world could be seeing this. Meaning that terrorist groups could be learning our war tactics or learning information about the government. In the end, the government's right to know is much more important because the government is trying to help protect our society. In telling the people our secrets we would be broadcasting it to the world. For example, if the press wanted to give out a store on how the United States trains our soldiers, it would not be smart to put that out for the whole world to know.
In my opinion, the press should be restricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security because they're trying to protect us and if the media gets a hold of the information certain things can be exposed or leaked which could jeopardize our safety. I believe that the government’s interest in protecting society is more important although the citizens right to know is also important because if we know a certain town was in jeopardy we would be more aware because we don’t want an event like 9/11 to ever happen again.
Upholding the protection that the First Amendment provides regarding Freedom of the Press is very important. The only limitation that I support regarding national security would be against publishing confidential information that could threaten current operations at war time. We wouldn't want our enemies to know our war strategies because that would place our soldiers in danger. Freedom of the Press is very important because it helps to prevent politicians and the military from getting too much power. The US public has a right to know what the officials they elected are doing, especially if it is something immoral or unethical. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled, in New York Times vs. US, that the United States must demonstrate that a "clear and present dander" exists in order to issue a restraining order against the press on issues that may effect national security. I agree with this decision because it protects the First Amendment and helps to force our military and political leaders to act and operate in moral and ethical ways and prevents tyranny, otherwise, it could be printed on the front page of every newspaper!
The press should be limited in reporting information that could interfere with the National Government because of the peoples' lives that could be in danger because of the leaked information. If the reporters did share information that was not really supposed to be heard at the time it could screw up something big that could happen. Or some one in the military, for example, could now be in danger because of the reporters mistake. I feel that the interest of both sides are more important than the other in some situations. However, the government's protection of society is more important because they have many secret operations.
I think that the press should be restricted in releasing information about our national security. Important information about the government could be leaked to other people which could put us in danger. I believe the government's intrest in protecting society is more important because the government is only trying to help us. Reporting information is just giving out all our secrets for the world to know. Citizens right to know is also very important but overall the governments intrst in protecting society is more important.
I believe the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. I think this because once released, the hole world would have this restricted information in there hands and could use it against the United States. Also it could put our veterans in more danger than they already are because what if the enemy gets this classified information, they could know when and where we are going to attach, where we get our ammunition from, and most importantly, where we are stationed. Overall, the governments interest in protecting society is more important than the citizens right to know because the government may contain some dangerous information that if handed to the wrong person, it could lead to destruction.
In my opinion I think that there should be a limit to what the press can print, if it is a concern with national security. I think this because once the New York Times came across a to secret government document, and wanted to publish it. The document contained troop movements. The New York times argued that they had the right to the freedom of the press which stated that the newspapers could print what ever they wanted to. I believe that this is an issue because our enemy countries could read this, and know our troop movements if we were at war with them. National security is more important than citizens having the right to know because, if the government let out all of tit;s secrets then our we wold be transparent to our enemy countries.
I think that the government has the right to restrict information when it is released it to the press. I think it is in the government's interest to protect society in only knowing limited information. The government does not want the country to be blind on what they do completely, but they need to have some private information. I f the government gave out all their secrets to the public, then people from other countries might use it against America.
I feel that the government has the right to restrict the press's rights if it is a matter of national security. Society's curiosity often overcome's us especially those who may have family members over sea fighting for our country. However, if information about our troops or plans gets out into the public then those family members would be in great danger. That is why the government's interest's may be greater then ours in this situation.
I think that the government has no right to restrict freedom of the press. The government should be able to let the people mostly everything (even though they do not). The reason Freedom of the press was put to use in our government, was so that the government could not restrict what the press has to say. The right to petition and freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with freedom of the press, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If the government starts putting restrictions on Freedom of the press, it will then affect other freedoms the citizens of the United States are entitled to, therefore causing a major issue. National Security issues must be discussed with the American people to know what there government is facing. If the American government starts telling the people the issues they are dealing with, it would create a more trustworthy relationship between the people and the government.
I think that the press should be limited to what they say about people because it can be offensive to others and it shares information that the people are not supposed hear. If the press is aloud to say whatever they hear, something could be leaked about our government and terrorists could use the information to attack us. We would want to prevent any attacks from terrorist to keep the U.S. safe.
The press should be limited in reporting information that could interfere with the National Government because of peoples' lives could be in danger from the known information. If reporters did share information that was not supposed to be heard at then could lead to a big court case that would end up giving the government stress. Or, someone's live could be in danger. I think if that the government did report information that should be private they should have the consequences. Although, i feel that it is important for the citizens to know what is going on. It does leed to information being leaked to the wrong people, but they should just not publish important national security information.
In my opinion, the press has to be restricted from publishing information and files that would threaten our national security. If the press were allowed to publish information that would compromise our national security our enemies would get their hands on it. If our enemies get their hands on it, then they could learn our strategies and opinions on a war. If they learned our strategies, they would be able to defeat us in the war.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information that interferes with national security because the government's interest in protecting society is more important. Although the citizens have a right to know, it could put their safety at risk and the government is supposed to protect it's citizens. If the press released the information involving national security, the rest of the world could find out and it creates a very dangerous situation.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security because even though people reserve the right to know. It is more important to keep the information confidential because people in certain areas people could get angry and riot, and enemy forces could get this information and figure out our war strategies.
I think that the citizens have a right to know all information that the government can share. If the government does not want this information to get around they can not allow people to post that information online so other countries can not capture it and use it against us.
I think that both parties in this situation have very important roles in this scenario. However, i do believe that the government should have the right to limit the press to the extent that the newspaper, website, or whatever form of publication the information is released from. If the press is able to trespass into the government's decision making process, the extremely exclusive ideas shared by government officials is exposed to not only the public, but also to the entire planet, especially when the news is exposed via the internet. The danger with that involves military strategies being exposed to enemies, politician ideas, and other confidential things that the public does not need to know. That being said, the citizens do have the right to know about what goes on with out country. However, in this situation, if the two sides were to be balanced out, in my mind, the government has the more important interest in this situation.
The press should be limited in reporting information that interferers with national security. The government's interest in protecting society is more important than a citizen's right to know. The governments protection can jeopardize American citizens if national security is leaked. Their are many wrongs that can come out of loosing national protection over America. For example, America's enemies would have a advantage over us knowing our tactics and could attack us at anytime. Although, the citizens should have a right to know, it would not be a smart move broadcasting the armies plans to the world.
I think the press should have some rules that restrict the press to some extent. However, I do think that the citizens should have most of the say in what should be printed. The government should not "control" what gets printed or what should not get printed. If there were no boundaries, the government would have to worry about the the press is printing and how it would affect America today.
I believe that the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national society for the prior reason of protecting society. It could be dangerous for society to know information that was supposed to remain secret, or for society to know information about other officials, such as someone in our military, that could potentially put them in danger. Although citizens rights to knowing information is very important, the government's right to protect it is more critical in the overall interest to protect society. Putting critical information into the wrong hands could leave to severe damage to our country.
I believe that the press should have a limit when they report information if it interferes with national security.I feel this way because it is in the governments interest to protect the people. If information was put out that was not shouldn't, it could hurt many people. I think that it is more important that that the government protect society then the citizens right to know.
I think that the press should have certain restrictions when reporting information if it interferes with our national security. There are possibilities that citizens may take that information and use it against the country. The government is supposed to protect us, but there are cases when the public should know about what's going on in the country.
I think the press should be limited to reporting information of it interferes with national security because I believe that the safety of society and the public is more important then the knowledge of them knowing the information. If the government wanted the citizens to know about information, then the government would let the people know, but in some cases, the government doesn't want the people to know. In some cases it is better for information to be a secret than putting danger to the lives of people.
I think that press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security because the government rules. I understand that a lot of citizens would be anxious and want to know what's going on, however, possible rumors could potentially put the country in severe danger. The government would never want to hurt us or put us in danger. Therefore, we would all be better off to let the government resolve the situation. To sum it up, the press would be much better off to let the government figure out the situation first and then publish and release that information.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information that interferes with national security, because its releasing private information, that should not be published. Even though the citizens, do have the right to know whats going, the governments interest in protecting society is more important. Its is more important, because if the government was having a problem, and didn't want people to know, because they didn't want to worry, than it is really not releasing to the press.
I believe that there should be restrictions for freedom of the press if it interferes with national security. It only takes minutes for news to get onto the internet when, at that point, anyone in the world get view it. If news like U.S. military plans or secret military technology were to get out, spies from other countries and America's enemies could use it against the U.S. American's say it is our right to know everything that the media is reporting, but American's are not the only ones who are going to see or hear it.
The press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Our own safety should be prioritized before media often meant for personal benefit. If information classified as "sensitive" was to be reported and published to the public, it could produce various forms of tension. Tension could arise between the U.S. and external countries if these countries were to gain information that they could use to their advantage against us. Sensitive information in the hands of terrorist could also be catastrophic. While freedom of the press is very important because it enables discussions and opposing opinions and protects first amendment rights, protecting lives is of greater importance.
There should be restrictions put on freedom of the press if it interferes with National Security because the government wants to keep it private for a reason. Government information can sometimes be extremely confidential and if it gets out to the public it could be used as a weapon against America. The government information should be kept confidential because if no one knows about it but the government then the public should have nothing to fear because it is kept secret. If American enemies find out about about the information then America could be put in jeopardy.
I think that the freedom of the press should only be limited when it puts people at the risk of harm. If you could print articles involving national security then people would be at risk. The government trying to keep us safe is in my opinion more important than freedom of the press. For example if information was printed on United States soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan than it would put them at risk. So therefore it is more important to keep us safe then have absolute freedom of the press.
I believe that the press should be limited in reporting content that interferes with national security. I think that the interest of the government protecting society is much more important than the citizen's right to know. My main reason for believing this is because another government or terrorist group could read all of this important information and use it against the United States of America in a harmful way. Even though the citizens deserve the right to know I still believe that if releasing the information could cause harm to the United States than it is better to keep it confidential and a secret.
The press should be restricted in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Granted, American citizens have a right to know about all decisions made regarding their country, however, there is no way to ensure that such information does not get leaked to other countries. If this happens, it is quite possible that the information might backfire, and result in harming the US, as opposed to helping them.
i think that the government can limit information that interferes to the national security. The government should limit this because it can effect the entire country by letting the public know what is going on the the national security. It is more important for the government to protect the security then to tell the public because it can effect the public also.
The press should not be allowed to share information that could threaten national security or the citizens of the United States because lives could be lost, and it is not worth it to put people's lives at steak just because of a newspaper story. Of coarse, every citizen has the right to know what is happening in the country, but me knowing what is happening in the country, it is not more important than someone's life
I think that if the information interferes with national security, it should be restricted. Some government information could harm our country if exposed to the world. Even if people want to know what their country is doing, information can easily be exposed to potential enemy. If knowledge means potential destruction, maybe it is better not to know.
I think the governments interest in protecting society is more important than the citizen's right to know because if a headline comes up giving away anything that can be used against the USA in a potentially harmful way, the US should be able to limit the press in the case of national security.
I feel that the government has the right to limit the press if they feel that what the press is printing could have a serious risk on our national security. As a citizen I feel that the government's interest in protecting our national security is more important than out personal interests. It is more important to make sure our country is safe than the citizens right to know information.
I think if the information interferes with national security then the government should not give that information away until they know it's safe. Anything that is out in the open in America is known in other countries too, which might make an unsafe environment in the U.S. Even though, I think American citizens have the right to know information from the government, some things need to be kept quiet to keep a good society.
I think that if Freedom of the Press interferes with National Security, the government should not release it to the public. This is because letting the public know this information could be dangerous for the country. For example, what if someone betrayed the country by giving the information to another country? The results of this would be catastrophic. Therefore, if the national security of the country is in danger, the government should not release the information to the public.
Press most definitely should be limited if it interferes with national security. Even though it is the people's right to knowing, In the Supreme Court Case, New York Times v. United States, this was an issue. President Nixon wanted to stop the New York Times from publishing confidential articles about the United States actions in Vietnam. Unlike my opinion, the Supreme Court found in favor of the New York Times. If it is a matter of national security, what the people do not know cannot hurt them.
I do believe in the freedom of the press but there are should be limitations on what to sat in regards to national security. For example if a person could be asking a solider wether or not they are attacking tonight. the person would sat yes but that nobody can find out about it. If the enemies somehow get this information we will lose. The government should not allow this because it will cot us loses in wars. The government is trying to protect our country. In order to protect our country the government must put limitations on the freedom of the press.
i believe that it is not right of the press to give out information to society regarding government secret informatioon. one main reason why i believe this is becasue it poses a threat of security to america. and also the information could be used against america. if the press does not release just this information our country would be better off. and there are more advantages for society if they do not know this information
I believe that the public should have the right to know but at a certain extent so that the government and Nation security could not be harmed.
I say that yes, the press should be restricted in repoting the information if it's classified and dangerous if leaked to the public. It's because the government wants to protect us, so that if these were leaked terrorists could use them to theirn advantage.
I believe that the press should be restricted if it's a matter of national security. In addition, i feel that if it puts the lives of citizens in danger it should be printed at a more appropriate time. Also, I think that the citizens rights are more important but also is there safety. Lastly, if the content of the information can result in harmful situations i believe that it should be printed at a later date.
I believe that it is more important for the people to know what is going over national secruity. If the people dont know what is going on than no one will know what is happening except our leaders. It is our right to know what is happening and it no one can tell us what we can know and what we can't.
I think that the Press should never be limited. There is no real way to tell that a news paper article is a threat to our national security. The need of free speech to a successful democracy far outweighs a possible threat to our nations security. It is the governments duty to not allow information to be leaked, not the press' duty to not publish information freely. If this were the case, we would not be living in a stable democracy. In the grand scheme of things the free press should and will always prevail.
I think that the press should be restricted from reporting info that could harm national security. I think that the governments biggest interest is in protecting their people and letting the press print something that harms national security is not protecting their people. What the citizens don't know wont hurt them. Although we have the right to know whats going national security is more important
Press should not be limited just because of national security, because even though it may pose a threat to our country and it might be a big deal, the people still deserve to know what the government is doing at all times. Besides, if the government has to keep something from the public, why are they doing it in the first place? So people have the right to publish what they want others to know. As Thomas Jefferson said: If I had to choose between a government with no newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate to prefer the latter.
The press should not report information that would put our nation at risk. However, if the information is available, the public has a right to know the information and how the government plans to protect our society. If however, the nation is at war, information that is important to our security should definitely be kept secret.
I believe that the press should be limited to reporting some information that is extremely sensitive to the Country and threatens national security. I believe that the press should only be restricted if the information puts the citizens of the U.S. in danger. The people in the U.S. have the right to know what is happening but i think it is in everyones greatest interest to keep all the people of our country safe
I think that the press should be limited in giving out info about our national security because news gets around very quickly. Also, I think its the governments concern in protecting us society than us citizens knowing what is going on. You never know if a terrorist is reading it and just one sentence makes them mad so they plan an attack.
i belive the press should be restricted in publishing information that threatens national security. It could one damage the U.S society, two put many of their soldiers at risk, and three could damage the U.S. All in all, i believe that it is not in the right mind, and should not be allowed in america.
I believe that the press should be restricted in giving out information about national security. When important information is leaked, it could potentially put us in danger by putting it in the wrong hands. Handing out information is just giving out all our secrets for the world to know. These thing are kept secret for a reason, to keep us safe. Citizens right to know is also very important, but to a certain extent. Although, overall the governments intrest in protecting society is more important.
Yes, the press should be limited in reporting information if it interferes with national security. Even though I would want to know, I think the government protecting the society is much more important. If there is important info released there can be many conflicts that can arouse and prevent whatever the info is from happening or being accomplished.
I think that there should be a limitation for the safety of national security. I also agree that the people of America should know what their government is doing, but also their health and safety is more important. If other countries get a hold of some information, it could be a threat to our country and national security.
Post a Comment