Before we begin writing any first drafts, for both compositions, we are tasked with some "first steps." The statement of prospective claims is one of these said steps. Personally, I try to take advantage of my statement; I include all of my knowledge on the subject thus far and then try to integrate sources together in conversation. Moreover, I also try to list any complications I have, such as a lack of understanding, insight, or any other problems.

 I am tasked with the creation of a composition regarding absolutism and its relationship to internet filtering and democracy. In order to adequately author such a work, several questions must be answered: first, what is absolutism and second, what is its relationship to internet filtering? Sunstein addresses the first question. According to him, absolutism is a doctrine in which, at its core, all speech stands on the same footing; there should not be any effort made to discern what category speech falls under. Under absolutism, whether political speech, commercial speech, or even sexually explicit speech, all forms of speech are granted freedom of expression. Unfortunately, this is where my comprehension begins to falter. The relationship of absolutism to the internet is not clear, or to me at least. Stanley Fish insinuates in his blog that the “post-New York Times v. Sullivan mantra” is the primary source in the allowance of “crush videos,” controversial videos that are allowed due to being “expressive speech.” As a quick note, I interpret the NYT v. Sullivan ruling to be one of absolutism. It may not be complete and absolutism as the school of thought defined it; however, it still is absolute political speech. But I digress; this discussion is better suited for the discussion of historical aspects. Sunstein argues that it is not a question of whether, but how will the Internet be regulated. He argues that speech is not absolute, not in person, and certainly not on the Internet. However, Laurence Tribe, in the face of the Columbine shootings, instead asserts that “basic constitutional principles” do not change with the emergence of new technology. Tribe presents his opinion of how there is already sufficient regulation in place; more effort should not be endeavored in preventing the dissemination of malicious speech but rather the dissemination of deadly weapons.

The arguments placed by Sunstein and Fish can be traced back to a multitude of cases. As expressed by Fish, the root cause, which conceived such complications regarding whether speech is expressive, is none other than NYT v. Sullivan. The historic implications of this case are enormous. To my understanding, before NYT v. Sullivan, the primary theory of the First Amendment was that speech must not have “clear and present danger.” Afterwards, the Warren Court ruled that all speech regarding public ideas must be free and protected. Thus, the Court absolutely opened up political speech; furthermore, it essentially created a new doctrine regarding speech. The primary question was now, is this speech? Synder v. Phelps is a modern repercussion of NYT v. Sullivan. This new case concerns Westboro Baptist Church protesting America’s “fag troops” during a marine’s funeral. Whether good or bad, Westboro Baptist Church’s homophobic chants of America and its troops were proven to be legitimate and under protection, despite occurring near a Marine’s funeral. Because the speech was a “public issue,” occurred on public grounds, and complied with authorities, it was deemed to be expressive. I believe the historical aspects are important due to one reason; the theory and application of the First Amendment completely changed. A single court case, NYT v. Sullivan, dictated which speech was free for decades. However, the question still stands. How is absolutism and its roots related to the dangers of Internet filtering and democracy?

Ultimately, I will conclude my statement of prospective claims with a discussion of how my sources integrate. Sunstein or Fish will probably serve as the predominate idea to either agree with or argue against. I am mostly leaning towards Fish, his blog expresses his opinion clearly and also holds very recent cases. Thus, Sunstein will probably provide another angle of insight to the discussion, while mostly agreeing with Fish. Where to insert Tribe’s thoughts is still undecided; however, his opinion appears to best be used as a contrast to the prior two. Moving on, when I lead the audience to explore the past for historical implications, NYT v. Sullivan will take up the mantle. The case will serve to explain just how critically it changed the application of free speech. As of now, I feel as if I still need several more cases to demonstrate this change. However, afterwards, I will transition into Synder v. Phelps, thus providing a modern application and further demonstrating how strenuous the historical implications are. This is my plan for the sources I’ve obtained thus far.