you may want to specify that it's the first amendment to the US constitution (and not a state constitution or some other law)
 

I think "limit" is a bad verb to use in conjunction with a court action. In a functional sense, the Court can limit the scope of the First Amendment. However, in reality the Court is only granted the constitutional power to interpret and apply the law. I realize the terminology may pop up in law reviews occasionally. But I have a hunch that there isn't a lot of good contextual evidence that speaks to what it means for the Supreme Court to limit a protection.
 

Something to consider about the argument that the 1A topic is more limited than the lists:

In may be facially more limited by the core ground of the 1st amendment. However, is it possible that folks might be more encouraged to go to the peripheral cases of the 100s of potential options because they are less interested in debating the core 1st amendment cases? For example, some folks might find their needs better met by the diverse list areas so they be less likely to head to the periphery. While obviously folks will debate outliers either way, is the First Amendment more likely to provoke that because folks interests are not met by the core of that topic?

-Adri
 

"political speech" will let you access both the election cases and the protest cases - i would for sure include "political speech"
 

"political speech" will let you access both the election cases and the protest cases - i would for sure include "political speech"
 

political speech is a legal term of art - it's not "everything but commercial" - it is speech to which the speaker attaches political significance. porn isn't considered "political speech"
 

cites on "political speech"

Magarian 2005, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 247
 

even if people want "political speech" to be broader, if the resolution requires the Aff to limit the protection, it doesn't matter -- the Aff would have to limit what the Sup Ct has defined as "political speech" - right?
 

even if people want "political speech" to be broader, if the resolution requires the Aff to limit the protection, it doesn't matter -- the Aff would have to limit what the Sup Ct has defined as "political speech" - right?
 

“the Court will never provide child pornography or cigarette advertising the level of protection customarily granted political speech.” See R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 415, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)


"The Tennessee statute implicates three central concerns in our First Amendment jurisprudence: regulation of political speech, regulation of speech in a public forum, and regulation based on the content of the speech. The speech restricted by § 2-7-111(b) obviously is political speech. “Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S., at 218, 86 S.Ct., at 1437. “For speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). Accordingly, this Court has recognized that “the First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco Cty. Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 1020, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 625, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971))." from Burson v. Freeman