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.