Here lies my annotated bibliography for Composition 1. The work has been formatted such that the green text represents my annotations. Through reading them, you may discern my thought process in deliberately choosing what to include in the annotations. If I thought the work had potential to be employed as a primary or argumentative source, I wrote a much more detailed annotation. For example, scholarly works that provided an argument, such as Cass Sunstein's Republic 2.0 or Stanley Fish's "The First Amendment and Kittens," entailed an annotation that included who the author was, his/her credibility, the argument, perhaps the audience, and how I would employ such a work in my essay. However, In my initial attempts at writing annotations, I had tried to employ the Anteater's Writing Guide's methodology to all my sources. I soon learned that such a formulaic approach proved futile. Take my first attempt for example, the two annotations for the court cases are much more different than the ones in the final version. I learned that you must rhetorically decide for yourself what to include. For example, as applied to cases, I prefer a summary of the events preceding the case, the court's decision/ruling, and the possible repercussions or relationships this case has with my other sources.

Works Cited

[Adult and child from Westboro Baptist Church holding signs]. n.d. Wordpress. PNG file.

An image showcasing the typical protests of the Westboro Baptist Church and their homophobic protests. I employ this image in conjuction with the historical aspects of absolutism, specifically the case of Snyder v. Phelps, as it concerns the WBC.

Botelho, Greg, and Joe Sterling. “FBI: Navy Yard shooter ‘delusional,’ said ‘low frequency attacks’ drove him to kill.” cnn.com. CNN, 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

CNN published an article consisting more of a news report than anything. This article deals with Aaron Alexis and the Navy Yard shooting incident. In addition, it addresses possible motives for the perpetrator  including the FBI’s belief that Alexis was “delusional.” Ultimately, the source is a precursor to Guth’s tweet as it provides background information on the Navy Yard shooting.

Fish, Stanley. “The First Amendment and Kittens.” New York Times. New York Times, 26 Apr. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

Stanley Fish, a professor of humanities and law and prolific author on the subject of higher education, expresses extreme dissent at the first amendment’s allowance of “crush videos” and investigates the history of the first amendment in order to explain to the audience how such a surreal “exception” is a reality. Fish voices his opinion in an online blog through a distinguished newspaper company. In elaborating upon the allowance of “crush videos,” Fish utilizes various Supreme Court cases and their respective court opinions, varying from Hustler Magazine v. Fallwell to Texas v. Johnson. The primary audience is New York Times readers; however, scholars in academia, proactive citizens involved in politics, and even animal rights activists are targeted by Fish’s blog. The blog serves to provide one man’s insight, Stanley Fish’s, upon the First Amendment and its current regulatory practice, and perhaps to incite discussion and thought upon the subject. Fish’s opinions have 2 main services to me: first, his dissent provides a source to support and transition Sunstein’s arguments on absolutism to a modern day Internet example; and secondly, Fish’s thoughts on speech and expression may be useful depending on the angle of my approach.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 15 October 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1278>.

Hustler Magazine featured a parody of Falwell, an evangelical Southern Baptist pastor, depicting his sexual experience, albeit false, with his mother and a goat. Falwell sued for “libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Falwell won the case and was compensated $150,000 in damages; however, Hustler Magazine appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld its previous rulings in New York Times v. Sullivan in that factual or defamatory speech did not detract upon its constitutional protection. Furthermore, the Court expanded its previous creation of absolute political speech to include public speech. This court case serves an intermediary between New York Times v. Sullivan and Snyder v. Phelps. It elucidates the history and evolution of free speech into modern day. I’ll probably employ Hustler Magazine v. Falwell to provide additional insight on the history of free speech.

[Jerry Falwell magazine ad]. n.d. Pace Law Library, New York. JPEG file.

This is the original Hustler Magazine parody of Jerry Falwell. The image serves to provide the reader a visual reinforcement of the Falwell case described within the blog.

Kirkland, Michael. “Getting fired for a Facebook ‘like.’” UPI. United Press International, 19 Aug. 2012. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.

The article revolves mainly around a court case in which Daniel Ray Carter Jr. was fired by Hampton, Virgina’s sheriff. Carter had “liked,” on Facebook, the sheriff’s opponent and the competing campaign. Kirkland authors the article from United Press International, an international news company. Throughout the article, Kirkland explores speech discrepancy between the public and private sectors; public employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment whereas private employees risk termination of employment. Michael Kirkland cites various opinions by attorneys, court cases, or law reviews to elucidate the discrepancy. His citations include Elrod v. Burns, Page University Law Review, and Lafe E. Solomon of the National Labor Relations board’s opinion. I will use solely the concept of speech being protected in the public sector to relate to Professor Guth’s tweet.

New York Times v. Sullivan. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 October 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39>.

Prior to New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times published an ad which claimed that the arrest of Martin Luther King, Jr. had an ulterior motive; it claimed the arrest served to hinder King’s endeavors at racial integration and promoting blacks to vote. Consequently, Sullivan, Montgomery’s city commissioner, claimed the ad personally tarnished his reputation. To make matters worse, four black ministers had endorsed the newspaper ad. Sullivan won his initial case; however, The New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court. The Warren Court, ruled that speech regarding public officials, even if false, warrants absolute protection under the First amendment, unless proven to be “made with actual malice.” Therefore, Sullivan no longer had a case, leaving the Court to rule in favor of NYT. This Supreme Court case represents the root in which all other arguments of speech stem from; the decision essentially created absolute political speech, which, in turn, complicated the classification of speech. I will mostly likely employ this source as the foundation of absolutism, utilizing it to elaborate upon the history of speech.

[New York Times v. Sullivan newspaper ad]. n.d. Pace Law Library, New York. JPEG file.

This source is the original New York Times ad revolving around Sullivan and his arrest of Martin Luther King, Jr. I will utilize this ad as a visual reinforcement of New York Times v. Sullivan.

Paulson, Ken. “Crass though it may be, this tweet is free speech.” First Amendment Center. First Amendment Center, 5 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center and former editor-in-chief of USA Today, evaluates upon whether the first amendment should apply to Professor Guth’s tweet regarding the NRA and the Navy Yard shootings. Paulson presents an opinion piece originally published in the newspaper, USA TODAY, but now republished on his website dedicated to free speech. In order to strengthen and validate his claim, Paulson cites the first amendment and comments upon its allowance of absolute political speech to further his argument. The opinion piece targets Ann Brill, dean of Professor Guth’s university, and those who agree in dissent with her, in reference to Guth’s tweet; however, Paulson also attempts to galvanize the American public to uphold the principles of free expression. The First Amendment Center opinion piece serves as to provide modern day relevance to the audience and ultimately a bridge back to absolutism and its history.

[Professor Guth’s tweet to NRA]. 2013. Campus Reform, Virginia. JPEG file.

This source is an image of Professor David Guth’s tweet, a professor at the University of Kansas. The tweet contains very impassioned and hateful speech, including “Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.” The image serves to illustrate to the audience exactly why the content of Guth’s tweet is special. Thusly, I employ this image as the introduction to the blog.

Rall, Ted. [Picture of Ted Rall’s “The Anti-American Manifesto”] n.d. The Washington Post. JPEG file.

This image depicts Ted Rall’s “The Anti-American Manifesto,” a book in which he criticizes the American way, specifically its capitalist system. Rall asserts that only through revolution will our corrupt system finally be resolved. I integrate this image in my blog as a method to emphasize the difference in free speech, as compared between pre-New York Times v. Sullivan and modern First Amendment interpretation.

Singleton, Solveig. “Reviving A First Amendment Absolutism For The Internet.” Texas Review Of Law & Politics 3.2 (1999): 279. Criminal Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Solveig Singleton, a lawyer with expertise in telecommunications, argues that the first amendment should actually be more absolute; to define her argument, she lists and elaborates upon three major components of her argument: the “pervasiveness” issue, the “incoherence” of community standards, and balancing tests. Singleton presents her arguments as an academic law paper through a peer-reviewed law journal. To support her arguments, Singleton cites various laws and court cases, including the Child Online Protection Act, FCC v. Pacifa Foundation, and Reno v. ACLU. The primary audience that Singleton addresses is dissidents of the First Amendment absolutism doctrine; however, it can be discerned that Singleton may also be directing her claims towards others in the field of law with an interest in the First Amendment. Singleton provides a source in which the ideas contrast with Fish’s and Sunstein’s. As a result, I will probably use this source as a foil, in essence, to the other two sources.

Snyder v. Phelps. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 October 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_751>.

Snyder v. Phelps concerns the family of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder and the Westboro Baptist Church. The WBC had protested against America’s tolerance of homosexuality and its “Fag troops” near the deceased marine’s funeral. Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father, sued the WBC for “defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Maryland’s district court ruled in favor of Synder; however, an appeal by WBC to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this ruling. WBC ultimately filed a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest was legitimate, despite its “distasteful and repugnant” words. Chief Justice Roberts authors the Court opinion, stating that due to Westboro Church discussing public matters at a public place, peacefully and without disrupting the funeral, the First amendment allows such protest. The case will most likely be employed in a cause-and-effect relationship with NYT v. Sullivan as the former; this case represents the repercussions of the 1964 Supreme Court ruling. However, this ruling could also serve as an introduction to the audience, constructing a path back to absolutism and NYT v. Sullivan.

Sunstein, Cass R. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1995. Print.

In the first chapter, “The Contemporary First Admendment, Cass R. Sunstein, a distinguished law professor and US legal scholar, elucidates the historical roots to the modern first amendment, especially denoting both the absolutism view, in which all speech warrants protection, and the “reasonable regulation” view, where speech is evaluated upon two criteria: benefits from its content and the potential harm from such content. Sunstein authors an academic, thesis-driven argument in the form of a nonfiction book, predominately concerning history and law. To clarify his arguments, Sunstein utilizes a multitude of historical evidence ranging from Supreme Court cases and their respective opinions to various laws. As a brief note, here is some of his cited evidence: The Children’s Television Act of 1990, Justice Brandeis’s opinions, and Justice Holmes’ opinions. The noted law professor’s audience embraces a wide culmination of people; those in the field of law will be obviously interested, however, both scholars of different disciplines and Americans concerned or interested in the history of their country will also find Sunstein’s book to be stimulating. His central purpose, for chapter one, is to inform his audience of the current state of the First Amendment and to educate them of the various “schools of thought” that have molded regulation of free speech to what it currently is. I intend to deploy this source as the foundation for explaining what absolutism is, followed up by extrapolating the concept to the modern day Internet.

Sunstein, Cass R. Republic 2.0. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007. Print.

Cass Sunstein argues that the Internet and the ability to filter content, on the electronic medium, adversely affect our democracy as it reduces one’s exposure to shared experiences, unexpected encounters, and ability to contribute in a deliberative democracy. Sunstein creates his arguments within a nonfiction book concerning politics. Throughout Republic 2.0, Sunstein cites a momentous number of sources varying from court cases and Justice opinions to laws; in addition, Sunstein also provides a great number of references to academic papers or books in which his argument is derived from. The law professor’s primary audience consists of those primarily concerned with politics; however, it can also be interpreted that the American public is the true audience because Sunstein’s arguments revolve around it. This source serves as a primary source, along with Stanley Fish’s blog. I will place Sunstein’s argument as the main focus of the blog. Other sources will communicate with Sunstein either affirmatively or, more likely, argumentatively.

Taboola. 101512_Free_Speech. n.d. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. JPEG file.

An image showcasing Uncle Sam’s disapproval of criticizing society. While the image is not directly dervived from a primary or background source, it serves to emphasize my point on proponents of “reasonable regulation” and their valued society harmony.

Tribe, Laurence H. “The Internet vs. the First Amendment.” New York Times. New York Times, 29 Apr. 1999. Web. 3 Oct. 2013.

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, argues that the Internet should not be held responsible for the Columbine Shooting by noting that new technology does not “affect basic constitutional principles” and how violent or nefarious speech, even on the internet, is not entitled to absolute protection. Tribe asserts his opinion in an online article for a distinguished newspaper company. In order to prove that the First Amendment should not be lynched, Tribe cites mainly laws and decisions by the courts, such as the Communications Decency Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision on pamphlets regarding tax evasion, creation of illegal drugs, or murder. The professor addresses not only those who are concerned with politics or free speech, but also victims of the Columbine shooting, which in essence includes the American public. His central purpose is a reminder of how basic constitutional principles are not affected by new technology—the Internet—and to compare the extent of protection of speech on the internet relative to regular speech. This source provides a different, more optimistic approach than Sunstein and Fish; while the latter two believe in regulating speech, Internet or otherwise, Tribe presents a view in which the means of regulating speech is sufficient and action needs to be taken elsewhere.

Trivedi, Anjani. “Georgia Bus Driver Fired for Facebook Post.” TIME. Time Inc., 6 June 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

This is an article from TIME magazine describing how a bus driver was fired over his Facebook post. A student had boarded Johnny Cook’s bus without eating lunch (he did not have enough money that day). In response, Cook expresses disapproval on Facebook. Once his employers learned of the post, Cook’s employees forced him to ether retract his statement and apologize, or be fired. Johnny Cook’s experience mainly provides background information that is useful in the presenting of my guiding question.

“University of Kansas decries offensive comments.” Kansas University News. University of Kansas, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

The University of Kansas news published their statements regarding Professor Guth’s tweet of the Navy Yard Shooting. Ann Brill, dean of the School of Journalism, and Timothy Caboni, vice chancellor of public affairs, were the focus of the article. Brill’s statement took a broader approach, specifically addressing what free speech entitles; she asserts that free speech is not absolutely free—one much evaluate it to see if it adversely affects society. Caboni’s words were more specific, addressing at least faculty. He states that the University of Kansas expects its faculty to partake in public deliberation; however, they are also to refrain from “inflammatory and offensive comments.” This source serves as background information to Professor Guth’s situation. Because Brill’s words are more conceptual upon the nature of free speech, I may be able to situate her in conversation with Sunstein.

[Woman from Westboro Baptist Church holding sign]. n.d. Wordpress. PNG file.

This second image depicts Westboro Baptist Church’s protests. As with the first, this image will also be employed with Snyder v. Phelps.