Is national security a concern serios enough to warrent restricting 1st amendment rights?

Question

say in 1 paragraph

Answer 1

No. First, let's look amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

There is no right in this amendment that would need to be abridged for national security reasons, save perhaps, the publishing of state secrets that would harm the country or its citizens. An example would be if the press got hold of and published military plans or orders of battle.

Otherwise, none of these rights can reasonably be abridged without it being a gross violation of our Constitutional rights.

Answer 2

Without more information on what the security concern is and what rights are being restricted, it is difficult to answer. However, the poster who said that newspapers cannot print battle plans is correct, this is an excellent example of when national security wins out over freedoms.

Answer 3

When those rights are abused - yes.

Look at how many US troops have been killed by the New York Times publishing information on our IED countermeasures in Iraq.

I was there and the enemy immediately changed their TTPs based on the NYT article.

Answer 4

Yes, when it comes to military operations. The press should never be allowed to report on plans for any military operation, any information about troop locations or movements, anything like that. I can't think of any other situation that should ever apply.

Answer 5

Yes.

Answer 6

It is to me.

Answer 7

NO NOT EVER!