Here is a portion from my Composition 1 annotated bibliography, in progress of course. Here I tried to follow the Anteater's Writing Guide for annotations, which didn't go well. I reflect upon this aspect in the final version of my bibliography.

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>.

The Warren Court, the Supreme Court with Earl Warren serving as Chief Justice, decided that speech regarding public officials, even if false, warrants absolute protection under the First amendment, unless proven to be “made with actual malice.” Justice Brennan writes the Supreme Court opinion, providing the Court’s rationales in determining the case. The audience is for the American public as it regards to their constitutional rights; however, the opinion also serves as precedence for future court decisions or even as considerations for future American progeny.This Supreme Court case represents the root in which all other arguments 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.

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>.

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts presiding, rules that the Westboro Baptist Church’s protest near a deceased Marine’s funeral is 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 primary audience of the opinion is to Marines and their families and to members of the Westboro Church. Most likely, the opinion will serve other future audiences, perhaps other courts or even legislators. 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.