# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Governments should not limit information to protect democracy because it violates citizens's rights to free expression and access to the truth.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
This evidence shows that limiting information can actually weaken democracy. For a democracy to work, citizens need to be informed so they can vote, speak out, and hold leaders accountable. When the government controls or hides information, it creates an enviroment of mistrust and misinformation. True democracy depends on open access to facts and diverse opinions, not government control of what people are allowed to know.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
The amnesty international restricted access to information often leads to censorship, propranda, and a lack of government accountability. In a country like China, the government tightly controls the media and oline content, which results in limited public participitation and trust in the democratic nations like Canada which protects press freedom that consistently score higher on global democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
I believe governments should be very cautious about limiting information, even if the motive is in the best interest of protecting democracy. While there are rare cases, like national security threats, where some information must be kept confidential. Transparency from the government is essential for a true and trustworthy democracy. When citizens are fully informed, they can; make better decisions, hold leaders accountable, and informingly participate in society.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
The reasoning behind this perspective due to my perception of history and global events that presented how limiting information often led to corruption, distrust, and even the collapse of democratic systems. When governments hide the truth, it gives them unchecked power which weakens public accountability. In democratic nations, freedom of the press and the right to information are tools people use to protect their rights and advocate for change. Without open access to facts and knowledge of the government, it removes the ability for the people to make informed choices. Which restricts the liberties that democracy is built upon. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
The ongoing secrecy concerning the Jeffrey Epstein files, which includes sealed files and redacted names, has caused public distrust and various conspiracy theories. Furthermore, against public interest many court documents have been sealed, and notable names were redacted or kept secret. Many people believe it to protect influential and powerful people of our society, who might have been involved. Which infringes the Rule of Law and lessens the public's faith in the justice system. This displays the consequences that occur when governments or institutions hide the truth, often backfiring and weakening democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
i believe that governments shouldn't limit information in order to protect democracy, because having access to information is necessary to have active and informed citizen participation and a stronger society. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
I believe this because if information is limited it can lead government toward authoritarianism and censorship meaning government is being more controlling and less respectful of individual rights and freedoms. In democracy individuals are meant to be able to have active and informed citizen participation and they have the right to make their own decisions and speak on their point of views. Restricting information takes away transparency and accountability of the government and other basic fundamentals of democracy, which can create distrust toward the government for citizens. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
An example that further proves this is the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China. During this the government restricted information and used censorship for anything that spoke about the pro-democracy movement. This made citizens have distrust and it took away political freedom. It restricted citizens from any truth and that's what led to wrong things. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Personally, I believe that governments should limit harmful information in order to protect democracy, but this should be done within reason and without breaching freedom of expression or human rights. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
Misinformation must be regulated by the government in order to protect the fundamental values that are upheld in democracies, such as informed citizen participation. As demonstrated through the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals that are repeatedly exposed to misleading information are often unable to make decisions that are informed and truthful. During the years of the pandemic, there was an abundance of misinformation regarding vaccines, leading to compromised trust in the Canadian government, as well as division among individuals who deemed themselves to be "anti-vax" and "pro-vax." This undermines the primary values of democracies, including social cohesion and government transparency. However, the government must only restrict harmful and misleading information without eroding freedom of expression. Excess limitations can potentially lead to censorship, as well as government abuse of power, in which opposing ideologies are silenced. Furthermore, Canadians have the right to choose whether or not to be vaccinated, and should be able to share their beliefs freely. Considering both perspectives, I believe that the government should be able to limit information in order to protect democracy, but should not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens in doing so. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
According to Statistics Canada, over 96% of Canadians have accessed information they deemed to be misleading or false regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Two in five Canadians that are exposed to false information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic believe it to be true, due to over 1.5 million Canadians never checking the accuracy of their sources. Furthermore 53% of Canadians have shared information regarding COVID-19 without verifying the credibility of their source. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Governments should not limit information to protect democracy because doing so goes against the principles of transparency and informed citizen participation, which are essential in a democratic society.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
If a democracy is supposed to be for the people, then the people deserve to know what's really going on. When the government chooses to hide things "for protection", it becomes easier for them to control what's being shown, and that's not honest or democratic. People need clear and full information so they can make informed decisions and speak up when something is wrong. Hiding information only makes people lose faith in the system.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
In democratic countries like Canada, freedom of information and freedom of the press are protected rights. These rights allow citizens to access government actions, decisions and information. In 2023, the Canadian government was accused of not being fully transparent about foreign interference in elections. This upset a lot of people and caused many to question if their voices were even being heard or if the government was hiding something important.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
towards my Perspective, I think that the government should not limit information Protect democracy, because this Prevents from the Citizens to freely Speak the truths or Participating in a democratic Policies.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
the Reason is that the government should focus on the use of control towards the information of power within the government is unacceptable, and how this prevents from the citizens to have a free voice or speech to Participate freely in a democratic Society. it then in which violates the respect for the Citizens to have Political power and control over the Protection of the Actions on the Government. the democracy within a power of the government is to ensure that, it is meaningful towards the rule of the people and, how it exercised the Political control that shaped the public opinions. the government should regulate the things like, the promotion of media and respecting the freedoms of speech. the role of the government should provide the needs and support for the citizens to be able to take into action towards the government to be held Accountable for their own safety and protection. the government should also address and provide the goods and services to the individuals who cannot handle themselves or are struggling with disabilities in life as the government should seek free healthcare and provide as Much need for citizens to create a safer environment to live.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
authoritarian states or Countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran where democracy remains the world's most commonly practiced form of democracy. in 2018, for example, a total of 96 out of the 167 counties(57%), were at a populations of at least 500,000 were democracies of some type. statistics show that the percentages of democracies were increasing and was known to have the world's governments combined. it indicates that back in the late 1970's, people demanded to have a good reforms and have more democratic Systems.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Governments should not limit information to protect democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
True democracy doesn't just depend on being widely informed, but on people having the ability to make decisions on the information they receive and how they act on it, whether good or bad. Additionally, while false information may exist in some cases, outright censorship gives governments far too much power to influence what is "true". I think we should encourage education in critical thinking and fact-checking to help navigate misinformation when it arises. A free flow of ideas allows wrong ideas to be questioned and corrected, but government censorship takes away this possibilitty.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
Throughout history and in recent times, when governments have controlled the information on which people act, it has often led to the abuse of power. For example, During the Cold War, Soviet censorship of serious information regarding the Chernobyl disaster hid the facts, and people died as a result. In China today, the state abuses control of information - for instance, the "Great Firewall" - not just to create misinformation but to prevent criticism from reaching the population. Even in democracies, all politicians occasionally try to dismiss inconvenient truths by labeling them as "fake news" to evade accountability for their actions. Empirical studies, such as those conducted by MIT in 2021, suggest that censorship has the exact opposite outcome than it aims to achieve. People often trust conspiracy theories more when they feel there is hidden information (MIT Research,2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NEW YORK - The literary and free expression organization PEN America today released a new Index of School Book Bans and accompanying report, that documents the alarming spike in censorship of books in school districts across the country over the past nine months, with individual books and even whole categories of books-many related to race, racism, sexual orientation and gender identity- disappearing from school library shelves and barred from classrooms and curricula. The organization said the widespread censorship was unparalleled in its intensity and frequency and represents a serious threat to free expression and students' First Amendment rights. This report constitutes the first detailed, book by book, district by district account of what books are being banned, where in the country, and through what procedures.

Here are the topline findings:

The Index lists 1,586 book bans that have occurred in 86 school districts in 26 states between July 1, 2021 and March 31 of this year. These districts represent 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of over 2 million students.

These bans have targeted 1,145 unique book titles by 874 different authors, 198 illustrators, and 9 translators, impacting the literary, scholarly, and creative work of 1,081 people altogether.

Texas led the country with the most bans at 713; followed by Pennsylvania (456); Florida (204); Oklahoma (43); Kansas (30); and Tennessee (16).

Processes aimed to uphold the First Amendment in the context of school book challenges are not being followed. Of bans in the Index, 98% involve departures from best practice guidelines for how school authorities may remove books; most bans and restrictions have occurred without proper written forms, review committees, or transparency. While school boards and administrators do have some discretion over library and instructional materials, there are safeguards and best practices meant to protect students' First Amendment rights that are being widely abrogated.

Among titles in the index:

467 titles (41%) included protagonists or prominent secondary characters who were people of color;

247 titles (22%) directly address issues of race and racism

379 titles (33%) explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes, or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+

184 titles (16%) are history books or biographies. 107 have explicit or prominent themes related to rights and activism (9%).

42 children's books were censored, including biographies of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Ruby Bridges, Duke Ellington, Katherine Johnson, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Cesar Chavez, Sonia Sotomayor, Nelson Mandela, and Malala Yousafzai.

The majority of the books targeted have been works of fiction, however 28% are non-fiction and include history books, analytical and/or personal essays, and children's reference and informational works.

The top 3 banned titles all are centered on LGBTQ+ individuals or touch on the topic of same-sex relationships: Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe banned in 30 districts, All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson, banned in 21 districts, and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison, banned in 16 districts. Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez, a love story between a Black teenage boy and a Mexican-American girl set in 1930s Texas, was also banned in 16 districts. The Bluest Eye by the late Nobel Prize laureate Toni Morrison is the fifth most banned book, in 12 districts.

Jonathan Friedman, Director of PEN America's Free Expression and Education program and lead author of the report, said: "Book challenges in American schools are nothing new, but this type of data has never been tallied and quite frankly the results are shocking. Challenges to books, specifically books by non-white male authors are happening at the highest rates we've ever seen. What is happening in this country in terms of banning books in schools is unparalleled in its frequency, intensity, and success. Because of the tactics of censors and the politicization of books we are seeing the same books removed across state lines: books about race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities and sex most often. This is an orchestrated attack on books whose subjects only recently gained a foothold on school library shelves and in classrooms. We are witnessing the erasure of topics that only recently represented progress toward inclusion."

Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, said: "A probing look at the surge in book bans across the country exposes an alarming pattern of mounting restrictions targeting specific stories and ideas and the widespread abandonment of established procedures aimed to safeguard the First Amendment in public education. Parents and community members deserve a voice in shaping what is taught in our schools; but the embrace of book bans as a weapon to ward off narratives that are seen as threatening represents a troubling retreat from America's historic commitment to the First Amendment rights of students, and to reacting to speech considered objectionable with more speech, rather than censorious prohibitions. By short-circuiting rights-protective review processes, these bans raise serious concerns in terms of constitutionality, and represent an affront to the role of our public schools as vital training grounds for democratic citizenship that instill a commitment to freedom of speech and thought."

As many news outlets have reported, book bans have become a favorite tool for state-wide and national political mobilization, departing from prior patterns whereby such bans tended to originate locally and spontaneously. National groups including Moms for Liberty, No Left Turn in Education, and Parents Defending Education are collating lists of books that they view as "racist" and "indoctrination" to mobilize under the banner of "parents' rights" and press their case to disaffected parents and responsive school authorities. At the same time, state legislators are introducing - and in some cases passing - educational gag orders to censor teachers, proposals to track and monitor teachers, and mechanisms to facilitate greater ease of book banning in school districts.

In response, opponents are mobilizing nationwide. On Thursday, Red Wine and Blue, a nationwide group of suburban Democratic-leaning women fighting the red-state proposals, has organized a nationwide "read-in" of banned books hosted by Dolly Parton's sister Stella that features the authors of targeted books such as "I Am Rosa Parks" and "Heather Has Two Mommies."

In addition to bans and restrictions, PEN America has also been tracking the spike in e ducational gag orders being proposed by lawmakers across the country, and the many bans on topics, materials and books that teachers can use in the classroom. Since January 2021, these include:

175 educational gag order bills have been introduced in 40 different states.

Fifteen have become law in 13 states; 103 are currently under consideration.

Of these, 97 target K-12 schools and 42 target higher education.

In compiling the Index of School Book Bans, PEN America defined a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.

###
About PEN America
PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect open expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

Contact: Jessica Sarstedt, [email protected] (202) 802-1835 or Nick DeSantis, [email protected] (202) 288-9534.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report: 1,586 School Book Bans and Restrictions in 86 School Districts Across 26 States - PEN America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Index of School Book Bans and accompanying report, Banned in the USA, documents the alarming spike in censorship of books in school districts across the country over the past nine months, with individual books and even whole categories of books-many related to race, racism, sexual orientation and gender identity- disappearing from school library shelves and barred from classrooms and curricula.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
In my point of view, I believe that governments should limit information when only it is necessary to not attack on hurting democracy principles. I believe that the spread of disinformation is a high threat to democratic ways and how it would be better off without having it. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
Limiting the spread of disinformation can minimize arising conflicts for the sake of safety for individuals and the government structures. In addition, it will promote an individual's free speech concepts that are backed up with real evidence and will have the chance to be rightly expressed, without biased information holding it back. Moreover, if consideration is not taken place of not restricting the spread of disinformation. It will not only ruin democracy principles, but damage the interaction between individuals not knowing real sense of information. Plus, create an atmosphere of illiberal actions where conflicts with democratic policies and social perspectives. As an example of consequences that would occur are attacking media freedom, perverting elections, undermining the rule of law, discrimination and mistreatment of migrants.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
To have a better understanding, disinformation refers to intentionally false or misleading communication tactics that manipulators use to advance their political or economic aims. For example, limiting the spread of disinformation influence from interest groups. This is because disinformation can influence individuals in changing their opinions without having a clear understanding of a topic stated and can develop overly influential racial beliefs on overthrowing political power. For instance, Osama bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden and the Tablin terrorist group believed that US interference with middle eastern affairs would spread democracy and influence overtaking muslim society. They further believed that discrimination against Muslims was an act of injustice and how the US promised to rebuild Afghanistan was a lie, while the US supported conflicts with Israel. In the US case, western involvement was only for a reason to stabilize peace with eastern affairs and limit the spread of Soviet Union dictatorship control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protecting Democracy from Disinformation: Normative Threats and Policy Responses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author: Chris Tenove University affiliation: Postdoctoral fellow, University of British Columbia Degree status: PhD in Political Science (2015), University of British Columbia Acknowledgments: Thank you toJordan Buffie, Spencer McKay, Fenwick McKelvey, and Heidi Tworek, for engaging discussions as I developed this paper, and to Jordan Buffie for research assistance.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Claim: Your right to vote is your opportunity to protect the freedoms for which Americans fight.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
By voting, citizens help choose leaders and laws that uphold these freedoms. When people don’t vote, they risk allowing those in power to take actions that could weaken democracy or restrict rights. Therefore, voting is not just a privilege, but a responsibility to continue protecting the freedoms that many have sacrificed to secure..

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
Evidence:Throughout history, Americans have fought in wars and movements—such as the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II, and the Civil Rights Movement—to defend and expand freedoms like democracy, equality, and civil rights. Voting is a core democratic right secured through those struggles.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
I believe that governments should not limit information to protect democracy because it prevents citizens from having freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
To have a healthy democratic society, freedom of speech is beneficial because it allows people to speak their mind, disapprove or approve of laws, and challenge leaders. Many think that taking away these rights is helpful because then people can abide with the government's rules, but I personally disagree. Governments limiting information is limiting individual's rights to be able to come up with their own opinions to help build a healthy, strong economy. In the long run, this causes more harm than good.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
In countries like North Korea, for example, governments limit information through media control and censorship of the internet. This denies citizens access from being able to share their opinions freely about society and the government. According to the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, North Korea is ranked one of the worst for freedom of speech, and allowing democratic participation of citizens.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Government should limit information from citizens in certain situations to protect democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
I believe government should sometimes limit information from citizens when it is necessary to protect national security, public saft, and the stability of democracy. if sensitive details such as military plan, counter terrorism operations, or election security measures were fully exposed, it would help enemies, spread panic, or allow disinformation to influence voters, which would harm the freedoms democracy is meant to protect.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
After world war ll, west Germany limited public access to intelligence and military operation to protect its new democracy from soviet and east German interference. By keeping sensitive information secret, the government prevented propaganda, safeguarded national security, and helped democracy grow during the cold war.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
In order to protect democracy, governments should not limit information as it would impose on the values of a liberal democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
Information is vital in a democracy as people in society should be informed about the world in order to make a proper informed decision.  People should know about any current events or policies that infringe on peoples rights and freedoms. If governments limit information they can start to shift towards authoritarianism as by limiting information they control the worldview of their citizens and they are not able to form their own voice. Liberal democracies are built on the voice of the people and by limiting information citizens lose their own opinions of the world as it can manipulated by the lack of information. 

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
People have the collective responsibility to hold their government accountable if they infringe on the rights of others. This is a fundamental to a liberal democracy. Bill 21 prohibits religious symbols to be worn by public workers when working. People feel that this bill discriminates them and restricts their religious and equality rights. Since people were informed on how this bill works and how it infringes on the equality of religious people they are able to use their democratic right to protest. This shows why it is so important to keep people informed about any bills and current events, it allows citizens to have a proper opinion about the government allowing their criticisms to be heard.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
I think that governments should not limit freedom of speech to protect national unity because it goes against democracy and can risk silencing important voices.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees your freedom of expression and makes sure it is recognized as a key part of democracy. But the many different debates around the hate speech laws and national unity can bring up some concerns about where to draw the line. Because this protects free speech while affecting a balance with protection against harm. Canada is also a highly ranked country for protecting civil liberties and political rights. Examples for this is when Quebec handled their voting to separate from Canada. They showed that open communication was need but not censorship and restriction of speech. This promoted that they understood how to make both sides that wanted to leave and the side that wanted to stay peacefully coexist in the same communities.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
Freedom of speech lets Canadians express themselves and voice their opinions which include complaints of government policies and thanks to freedom of speech it helped social progress and showed what need accountability. Speech restrictions also were made for maintaining unity to run the risk of excluding minority opinions. Unity in Canada comes from respecting each others differences and not limiting what one person has to say.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
The debate as to whether or not the government should limit information to protect democracy is a controversial debate that has been ongoing for many years. Some people believe that the government should limit information in order to prevent public chaos and misinformation. On the other hand, some people may believe that the government should not limit information because the government should be completely transparent with its citizens. While both sides of the debate are valid, I believe that the government should not limit information even if the intention is to protect democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
A key reason as to why I believe the government should not be able to hide information is that I believe it instills misinformation and panic. When the government is dishonest, citizens are unable to make rational decisions which violates their freedom of choice, a key trait of democracy. A democracy is built for and meant to serve the people, if information is withheld citizens can not have a meaningful say in government decisions. This ultimately destroys the whole purpose of the democratic system. Overall, even though the government may think that it causes less harm to hide information, being honest to the public creates a better and more trustworthy relationship between citizens. When citizens feel like they can trust the government they are more likely to participate in democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
A historical example of the government hiding information and it causing harm was with the Soviet Union’s handling of the Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl disaster occurred in 1986, when a reactor unexpectedly had a meltdown and exploded in what is now northern Ukraine. The explosion released large amounts of radioactive gas and material into the atmosphere. Initially after the explosion the Soviet Union chose not to send out immediate evacuation orders because they did not want to instill public panic as well as they did not want to damage their at the time strong reputation. It was only after around 48 hours that the Soviet Union was forced to make the situation public after being questioned by Swedish scientists who had noticed high radiation levels, however they severely downplayed the severity of the situation. It was only after mass media coverage and people experiencing the side effects of the radiation, did citizens begin to find out the true severity of the situation. While initially the disaster did not lead to many deaths, the long term illnesses, environmental damage and public distrust that followed the disaster were arguably made worse by the decision to stay silent. The Soviet Union's choice to withhold important information violated citizens' right to make their own decision as they were not given enough adequate information for them to make a safe and informed decision. This disaster shows that while the Soviet Union's intentions of not wanting to instigate panic among the people is justified, the greater harm that came from it caused by the withholding of information did more damage to democracy and its people.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
Governments should be able to limit information, but only when necessary to prevent harm to a democracy. Misinformation is one of society's biggest threats, and restricting it can help preserve fairness.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
Disinformation spreads fear, confusion, and division among the people. Governments can prevent citizens from being deceived and maintain the stability of democratic systems by taking steps to control false information, particularly during times of elections or national emergencies. Limiting information does not mean silencing people's voices but rather stopping harmful and false information that can break trust between the public and the government.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
This information is dangerous to democracy because it makes people lose trust and believe things that aren't true. A clear example is the 2020 US presidential election, when lots of false claims spread online saying the vote was rigged or stolen. These rumours were pushed by well-known people, including the president at the time, and got millions of views on social media. As a result, many people stopped trusting the election results, which led to the Capitol riot on January 6th, where angry crowds tried to stop the final vote count. This shows how online lies can lead to real-world violence and harm democracy. But this kind of thing didn't start in 2020. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, conspiracy theories started popping up online, saying the US government planned the attacks or that the buildings were destroyed with explosives instead of airplanes. Even though experts proved that these claims were impossible, many people still believe them. Over time, these ideas made people more suspicious of the government and news sources. This growing doubt made it easier for false news stories like the ones about the 2020 election to spread quicker and seem believable.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.EGgMMGI8
In my opinion, government shouldn’t limit information to protect democracy.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.FaZ-VbuU
If the power belongs to the people in democracy then people have the right and power to access information that is true and not a complete bias. If the government limits information to the public, it only promotes an unfair society which is a complete opposite of how democracy works. “Unfair society” wherein corruption or abuse of power is hidden to the public eye. As a result, leaders/state are not held accountable, this abuse of power will continue on unless the citizens become fully aware of what’s happening. So, as long as the government limits information, the longer leaders maintain their power.

# data[].attributes.custom_properties.l5iThKLM
A good example of government limiting information to “protect democracy” is the former President Duterte who harassed and threatened Maria Ressa, the CEO of  ‘Rappler’ – a well-known news outlet that covered the issue regarding drug war abuses,  human rights abuses and disinformation campaign during Rodrigo Duterte’s presidential term. Citizens have the right to participate in the government hence transparency of government must be ensured. This issue however didn’t protect democracy and failed to show the government and citizens being ONE. Rather,  it challenged the democratic values as the government limits the public’s access to truthful information which makes it harder for citizens to make informed decisions. Furthermore, due to the former President restricting the freedom of the press, he maintained his power and grew more followers that believed in his ability to make the country prosperous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Rodrigo Duterte’s war on press freedom, Maria Ressa stands up for the truth | Rachel Obordo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a fellow Filipino journalist, I was inspired by news that the Rappler founder had won the Nobel peace prize, says Guardian journalist Rachel Obordo

# data[].attributes.body
Creating Your Argument Post

1. Create a new post with your argument

2. Fill in the following components:

Claim : State your position clearly

Evidence : Provide specific facts, statistics, or examples that support your claim

Reasoning : Explain how your evidence supports your claim

3. You may add one attachment (image, link, or document) to strengthen your argument

Peer Feedback

Review your peers’ arguments

Comment with constructive feedback or counterarguments

Consider:

Is the claim clear?

Is the evidence credible and relevant?

Does the reasoning effectively connect evidence to claim?