Quarter in review

The study of issues surrounding the First Amendment and our rights to free speech has allowed me to come to many realizations about myself and what speech I would choose to protect.
When it comes right down to it, I've found it takes much more to offend me than I've ever really realized. Some of the cases had me puzzled as to why these issues needed to be taken to the Supreme Court to be solved. Then again, I am thankful they did because they have shaped the standards for speech that I am familiar with today.
I have also discovered that I am more of an absolutist than I thought. When I entered this class, I didn't really have a clear idea of what sort of speech I would protect and which speech I would restrict. But I've come to find that I value the opportunity we as citizens of the United States have to express ourselves. I'd much rather have to listen to speech I might not agree with than not have the opportunity to express it at all.
I have also come to the conclusion, specifically in regards to the animal cruelty speech, that my emotions tend to dictate how I feel speech concerning a specific topic should be treated.
In my blog about animal cruelty speech, without even realizing what sort of slippery slope claim I was making, I advocated making depictions of animal cruelty illegal because the act itself is illegal. This sounded great to me, being the animal rights activist that I am. Upon reading the comments Professor Atkins made about my blog, I realized what a huge logical error I'd made:
"Are you sure you want to argue that any behavior that is illegal automatically guarantees that depictions of that behavior are illegal? Shoplifting is illegal everywhere; should images of shoplifting also be criminal? Underage smoking is illegal; should images of teens smoking be illegal? Etc. In that case, no First Amendment exists because any behavior the gov’t declares illegal is automatically illegal to speak about or portray. I doubt you want to go that far so be sure to ground your argument for the animal cruelty law in an idea that isn’t quite so expansive."
Whoops...
Letting my emotions dictate my blog post did not work to my advantage in that case.
While I advocated for the absolute protection of speech in most cases, I don't think there is one philosopher or one theory that I could say I align myself with completely. It is just important to me that I don't let my personal biases or emotions get in the way of judging what speech deserves protection and what doesn't.