When it comes to security, limit press: #tellusatoday

We asked readers on Twitter which side they support when issues of national security and press freedom collide. Comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

There have been limits on speech when it comes to security and safety going all the way back to "Schenck v. U.S.," the 1919 Supreme Court case that stated a "clear and present danger" could limit free speech.

— @CindiDayton

I side with press freedom. If we allow the government to censor the media now, then it will push for more exceptions.

— @ErinSpandorf

Depends on the situation, but I tend to fall on the side of freedom of the press. People deserve to understand what the government is up to.

— @MattLaCasse

Benjamin Franklin said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I totally agree.

— @mrshertsan

In this age of terrorism, we have bigger fish to fry than protecting a reporter's sources.

— @HuntingBigfoot

Security would be my choice. In today's media world, it is too easy to make news public without thinking of the repercussions.

— @McBride505

If government officials can't keep a secret, then why tell them one? Go after the parakeet, not the person who overheard it.

— @Einsteinrevisit

For more discussions, follow @USATOpinion or search #tellusatoday on Twitter.