With this case, we were presented with two interesting questions: for those dealing with the First Amendment, exactly how far does the First Amendment protection of free speech extend; can ambiguous speech implicate an individual in a plot to assassinate a sitting president. The people addressing Fourth Amendment questions had to discuss the matter of privacy on the internet and whether a substantial state interest can be enough to override these privacy interests. It was my responsibility to argue the Fourth Amendment side, and the task of coming up with ways to argue both for and against privacy interests on the internet was more difficult than I first thought. For the government side, I had to argue that chatrooms could not be private; on the alternative, I had to argue that it was possible to have privacy on the internet, even though the Supreme Court has never before held this.
As always, it was very interesting to go to the Southeast Regional Moot Court competition and hear the various legal arguments others came up with for the case. With Melissa Moore, my team was able to do well enough on the first day of the competition to secure a top seed for the second day. We eventually finished third place overall in the regional. We will be going to California to argue at Nationals, and hopefully we will be able to have a good run at the national competition as well.