Regulation

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the govenment may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

This quote was in the reading and is out of Texas v. Johnson. I think this is a good example of the main issue with the internet and the wide variety of things you can read, write, or find on it.  I also think that this is where a lot of people have problems with the internet and feel that it should or should not be more censored. What I understodd from the reading is that the "tipping point" for offensive or disagreeable language on the internet is if it actually encourages a specific act of violence.  I thought the Planned Parenthood case was a really good example of speech that needs to NOT be protected by the first amendment - not because it is offensive or disagreeable, but because of the circumstances surrounding the speech and the fact that a lot of the information that was put on the website was being used to actually kill people. I think this kind of a website is a lot different than one that simply supports or opposes a viewpoint  or gives general information on a topic. Most people will find ideas or beliefs that they do not agree with, but that does not mean that they should not exist or should be limited. It is when those ideas cross a certain line into actually promoting violence or bad acts that the speech needs to be regulated. There obviously can not be a bright line rule on this, but I think the cases that we read for today point out that there are certain limits and that the Court is trying to figure out what these limits are.

First Post!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2042172,00.html

I recently read this article about the shooting that occurred in Tuscon last week and it highlighted a lot of issues for me. I did not know much about the shooting before reading this article and it was suprising to see how many issues concerning the 1st amendment were invovled.

First, Sarah Palin exercised her right to free speech by encouraging voters to "arm up" and go after elections that were up for grabs for her party. Second, Congresswoman Giffords read the 1st amendment out loud the day before the shooting and was exercising her right to free speech by speaking outside the safeway that day. Third, the response of the media, attacking both sides, was an exercise of free press and very much a part of the political discourse of America. All of these are incidents of people exercising their 1st amendment rights, but the outcome of the shooting was obviously not something that was intended.

These are simply observations I made while reading the article and I think there are many different levels of analysis that could happen from the Tuscon shooting that happened. I think it is a good example of how many different types of 1st amendment rights exist and how they do not always produce a positive result.