This is the 25th edition of Major Principles of Media Law, and the 23rd published on an annual revision cycle. This edition includes new developments through the end of the Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term and will be in print in time for fall 2013 classes; it sports glossary terms, sidebars and pictures (most either public domain, U.S. Government work, out of copyright, or licensed by their owners under the Creative Commons attribution license), and additional elements like “Focus On” sidebars and recommendations about what students should learn about their state law. Hundreds of changes take place in media law every year. In law that affects media professionals, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the first sale doctrine and two freedom of information cases, as well as in several other issues. But the big news this year was the Court’s same-sex marriage cases: striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and saying that the defenders of California’s Proposition 8 had no standing to bring their challenge. These cases are discussed in Chapter Five, and although they are not, strictly speaking, First Amendment cases, they still bear on the right to privacy most Americans view as critical. Also big news: revelations in The Guardian about PRISM, an NSA surveillance system, information about which was leaked by Edward Snowden, a contractor who smuggled it out on a flash drive. Hero or villain? Like Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, it may remain to be seen. Regardless of your position on the matter, the necessity of vigilance cannot be disputed. Speech issues continue to make the news, both good and bad. Texas teen Justin Carter has been in jail since March 2013 after an ill-considered Facebook posting where he threatened to kill children after a League of Nations video game loss. He’s being held on a halfmillion dollars bail under charges of terrorism. But in a bright spot for speech, in June 2013 a Texas Democratic state senator, Wendy Davis, made headlines for her 12-hour filibuster against a state abortion bill. The filibuster caused the lawmakers to miss the deadline to pass the law. During the filibuster, Davis couldn’t sit, lean against anything, eat or drink, go to the restroom, or talk about anything unrelated to the bill. Regardless of what one thinks of the abortion bill she delayed, she demonstrated the power of freedom of expression.