Christopher Ingraham in an article argues that the press should not be controlled by government and if it does then the First Amendment will be nullified which is a fact. Christopher writes to the general public and argues the exact opposite of what 37-percent of Americans argued for; that the news media should be required to get government approval before reporting on national security issues. It's blatant that the First Amendment will be violated if anything of this sort takes place and it's astounding how 37% voted for anything like this. I'm left with no choice but to agree with what Christopher is arguing because it's a no brainer that if we let Congress control what the media says, then that has already violated our First Amendment and could lead to more serious violations (like there aren't any violations already pffff). I like how Christopher concluded his article a quote by Thomas Jefferson at the end which did fit in perfectly with what the writer was arguing. Everything was well argued, and nothing was said out of proportion. It was cut clear, short, and to the point which was what I really liked about this argument. He didn't need to say much as it was pretty clear and logical about what he was trying to argue. Russia controls its media and look at what they have reported about their troops being in Ukraine (it was said that troops were there on vacation). This is the result of a controlled press and is a perfect example of what would happen in America if that was the case. The logic behind Christopher's argument is that everyone looks out for himself. If the government has control over the press then they will silence anything that would harm them and they would only publish what would make them look like the good guys and manipulate anything negative to being something positive about the government. I second this because the more power the government has, the more harm they will be able to do to the American citizens.