With current media events, I find it easy to believe that the freedom of speech we all take for granted, is not only situational, but entirely ambiguous. Assuming this is the case, I can therefore believe that it is either its legislation or its enforcement that marches to the tone of mediocrity. The current media events in reference is the unveiling of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame to the media. This remains one of the best examples of the flexible boundaries and transferable penalties in recent years. As a covert operative, Plame was overseas dealing with issues such as weapons of mass destruction. Upon the release of her identity to the media, not only her own well-being, but national security as a whole was jeopardized. If captured by anyone in opposition to the U.S., the least that could happen would be her execution. In a worse scenario, she could provide critical information to minimally delay her execution. Thus, the release of her identity to the media, and its publication not only deals with the freedom of speech, but also falls in line with national security and associated treason. As the facts currently stand, "a source" provided this information to Robert Novac, who used it in a column. Threatened with charges, he revealed his source, Karl Rove, Bush's senior political advisor, and chief political strategist. The funny part is, he looks nothing like the devil. However, In doing so, Novac dodged charges, but brought up a whole new scandal that is currently under legal investigation. To discuss Karl Rove's motivation in doing so would be to put political spin on an issue already seemingly teetering on the borders of bias simply by using it as an example. But to discuss the issue within the appropriate boundaries and dangers of the freedom of speech is entirely applicable. This story in itself conjures up several questions regarding these dangers and boundaries. Are there times and conditions where the freedom of speech becomes more or less valuable? At what level is it no longer free? And at what level can you get away with it anyway? Furthermore, the media seems to be held to different levels of responsibility and the politics that guide this freedom often appear to stand above it. As the value of this second amendment right has appeared to wax and wane with changing times, it has become exceedingly vague and unclear, and thus, often open to interpretation. And it is my interpretation that I have little in the way of an authority to interpret it. One of the most popular stories in the media today is also one of the best examples of the boundaries of the freedom of speech. Covert CIA operative, Valerie Plain, had her identity unveiled in the media. She was dealing with weapons of mass destruction and her identity being released means that if she was found, she would have been executed definitively, and furthermore, would have been a likely threat to national security. As the facts currently stand, "a source" provided the name to Robert Novac, who wrote a column about it in the media, unveiling her name. Because this can be considered treason, and he didn't want to go down, he unveiled his source, Karl Rove, and avoided prosecution. Though this is still being assessed, all available sources lead to this being the truth. This is a big ticket item regarding the boundaries and dangers of the freedom of speech. At what level is it no longer free, and at what level can you get away with it anyway? The media is held to differing levels of responsibility and the politics that guide this freedom often appear to stand above it. Additionally, The second amendment values the media claim to be under protection of, are not really in the second amendment. So it all becomes very vague and unclear, and thus, often open to interpretation. The unveiling of the CIA operative's identity is already moving towards Nixon-era conclusions, as those responsible dodge responsibility. And then go on to hire someone by the name of Robert Borc to find someone else to take the fall. Obviously the extent of exercising power above the law is thus far unnecessary. But the approach the defense attorney's are taking is quite simply to say that Karl Rove mistakenly broke the law, as the freedom of speech at that level is very confusing and situation dependent. And it is. But it's also status dependent. At this level, accountability by all measures has questionable connotations. And this is far greater than the ambiguity of the governing laws of the freedom of speech. members of republican party testified under oath and lied. bush gave his word that anyone who outs a cia operative would be fired. separation of church and state: let me sum up the trade off. Carbon dioxide holds in heat. It traps heat. We have billions of cars. Global warming takes place. Honestly, that's it. It's pretty basic. (numbers) It's good to be European. They will run this earth from day one, when they brought their horses to "the new world" to concquer it, and they will run it in the last days, when the rest of the world is inhabitable due to global warming, but they'll be borderline fine. Heat is channeled through the pacific. Global warming has casued basically shifts in the current which are messing up this heat transfer. So while the rest of the world is climbing in temperature, our fellow Europeans will be dropping at an equal rate- giving them virtually no climate change. different thing--- everyone makes hitler references... bush-hitler - the face to the show. goehring-cheny(war philosophy- war overseas support back home) goerbils (propaganda) Rove still nothing like hitler. but no reference since hitler has come closer - so please stop making this comparison.