The social implications of the first case study have to do with proliferating terrorism through media coverage. The argument is generally that widely distributing stories about terror attacks does exactly what the terrorists want, and spread terror. There is some validity to this point–whether it be an increase in our terror threat level, or news of bombing on the other side of the world, terrorism by and large depends on the media. The media by nature also indirectly depends on terrorism–bad news sells, but worse news sells better. In addition, there is really no issue of prior restraint at all. She seemed to revel in the graphic nature of her video coverage; however, the Supreme Court has ruled the First Amendment protects “distasteful expression” (Chapter 16, pages 376-377).