BRANDI LEVY CASE paper should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words long, not includi

BRANDI LEVY CASE
paper should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words long, not including references. This means your paper will be double-spaced, use 1-inch margins and 12-point font, reading at least six to eight pages long.Your paper should critically explore a current media/first amendment law issue, topic, or case as described above in the assignment description and should include the following four components:
paper needs to pose a specific First Amendment issue question arising from the facts of that case that you will answer in your paper. This assignment is not for you to write generally about the First Amendment and social media. You need to pose a question that is specific to the facts of Levy\’s case and how you believe the U.S. Supreme Court\’s reading of the First Amendment, based on First Amendment cases we have studied in class and that you find in your research would lead you to predict the Supreme Court\’s answer to the question you are posing from that case. COMPONENTS
Background: Spend approximately one to two (1-2) pages explaining the key facts of the case/topic or the news story you’re going to explore. For example, you may be interested in changes over the last several years to the FCC’s network neutrality rules, or to the responsibility of social media platforms such as Facebook or Twitter when it comes to “fake news”. So in this section, you would for example explain what net neutrality is and how recent disputes about net neutrality arose, or give some background and examples of how the controversy over “fake news” items arose as it relates to Facebook and/or Twitter, and what consequences or controversies are currently weighing on these organizations as a result of how they have dealt with the issue.
Issues: Then set out your First Amendment legal question that is raised by these facts and which you will analyze and answer in your paper. This may take a paragraph to a half-page, likely. This section should include a statement discussing the dispute or issue raised by the current media law event or case you have selected. For example, in the net neutrality example mentioned above, you could set out the legal question/issue that you see raised related to the FCC’s authority to regulate traffic over the internet; or, in the case of “fake news” on Facebook or Twitter, for example, what specific current legal challenges and issues being raised around the behavior of these corporations are you examining in your paper.
Analysis and Discussion: Then spend approximately three to five (3-5) pages explaining how the First Amendment question, case, news event/controversial issue or question should be resolved, given the principles we have studied in class and the current status of U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment law on this issue. In whose favor should the question be resolved? Why? How should the key stakeholders in the case move forward?
If you are choosing to critically analyze a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court or the way a First Amendment question ended in the lower courts without reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, you must discuss using First Amendment case law precedent in place right now either why the courts reached what in your mind is the correct decision OR why the courts should have decided differently (citing to current First Amendment case law that we have discussed in class this semester or you find in your research).
Conclusion: At the end of your paper, you need to reach and suggest a conclusion that you advocate as to how First Amendment law would resolve or settle the controversy you have chosen to write about. You could suggest, given the state of First Amendment law right now, how you believe the US Supreme Court would decide the case in question. In pitting two parties’ claims against one another, your conclusion should not be something as simple as “they should settle.”That would be oversimplifying the matter. However, if you think there are good faith arguments for the opposing parties in a legal case reaching a settlement, you should detail what that settlement would look like and what the advantages and disadvantages are for each party under the settlement you envision. (This is probably a more difficult and exhaustive task than determining whom the law favors on a particular issue.)