ring ring ring... BANANA PHOOOOOONE...

“As technology changes, so go the times.” – Dr. D. Rosenberg. It is the degree of interconnectivity amongst a people which determines their collective social consciousness’ desire to protect, or criminalize, expression which may be considered or portrayed as contrary to the public needs (dissent), subject to contextual consideration. This loquacious approach to annotate the old adage “Out of sight, out of mind,” as was more the case of older times, (since apathy is often attained as a consequence of ignorance, an unawareness administered by inadequate amounts of inhabitant interaction) arrives after ample attempt to apprehend experience of antiquity as authored by the (often idolized) ancestors of American affairs of state. And Alexis. De Toqueville states “It is difficult to draw a man out of his own circle to interest him in the destiny of the state, because he does not clearly understand what influence the destiny of the state can have upon his own lot. But if it is proposed to make a road cross the end of his estate, he will see at a glance that there is a connection between this small public affair and his greatest private affairs; and he will discover, without its being shown to him, the close tie that unites private to general interest.” When people encounter one another, experiences are shared and common bonds formed. Thusly, the faction(s) referred to by Hamilton in Federalist Paper #10 are provided an option whereby the previous mischiefs of united interest may then be said to extend for a conscientious cause to secure individual liberties. The self-interested inclinations of these individuals in question are again dependent upon human connection. The more intertwined an individual perceives his or her life to be with those of others, the greater the predilection toward agreeing, in principle, with the convictions of Thomas Paine and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The sentiment is one which states we should not deny ourselves the right to listen to the views of others with whom we do not already concur, lest we be slaves to our current knowledge and opinions. Also, that the freedom of expression becomes meaningless if it is not extended to mean the right to speak differently.
As the nature of science is to progress and furnish for people new articles of habit, social implications are always a consideration when making discoveries or devices of invention. Also, history has demonstrated for us that -being the social creatures we are- the tendency of the human personality has lent itself toward the use of communication technologies at every available turn. From this, we see that the protections of speech, assembly and publications which may be unpopular have, notwithstanding socio-contextual variants such as war or the anomaly of isolation, increasingly been expressed as a mandate from the masses to be extended through legislation and the bittersweet gavels of magistrates. A chronology of events regarding these protections to disseminate ideas over the course of the American narrative declare precisely this sentiment. In sum, we can thank the exponential permeation of technology into our daily lives for a set of civil liberties we currently enjoy. The increasing availability of mass media, telephones, internet and publications have bestowed upon people a growing de-centralization of human correspondence, and the ensuing expression of desire by the the people to secure for themselves the free usage of these technologies. War and isolation act as a counter-weight, advancing a disposition toward censorship. Popular opinion sways, influenced largely by peculiar styles of inter-cultural intercourse, and tyranny of the majority reigns in either event.
As to the matter of citing example, we need merely examine the interrelated chronologies of communication technology developments, participation in military conflicts, supreme court rulings, and other protections regarding free expression on a time-frame beginning with the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution up until modern day.

1791: The Revolutionary war had been over for 10 years. The first Amendment is passed.
1798: The Quasi-War is engaged. The Alien and Sedition acts are passed.
1798-1801: 25 people, primarily prominent newspaper editors, are arrested.
1801: Thomas Jefferson takes presidential office. The Alien and Sedition acts are not renewed.
1835: The House of Representatives passes the “Gag Rule,” effectively censoring abolishionist protests.
1837: Samuel Morse invents the American electrical telegraph.
1844: The “Gag Rule” is abolished.
1917: United States delcares war on Germany.
1918: The Sedition act of 1918 passes, criminalizing "disloyal," "scurrilous" or "abusive" language against the government.
1919: Shenck vs United States. Shenck’s conviction is upheld. Later that year, World War 1 ends at the treaty of Versailles.
1920: Congress repeals the Sedition act of 1918, citing it’s many abuses during World War 1.
1936: First fully functional television system.
1940: The Smith Act passes, designed to be a tool against communism. McCarthyist era begins.
1950: Korean War begins.
1951: Dennis vs. United States. The Smith Act was deemed constitutional.
1953: The Korean War unofficially ends.
1957: Roth vs United States. The test applied in Rosen is deemed to be too strict. Joseph McCarthy dies. Yates vs United States. The Supreme Court changed it’s interpretation of the Smith Act, stating that the Act was aimed at “the advocacy of action, not ideas."
1958: NAACP vs United States. Freedom of Assembly is ruled to be a fundamental right protected by the first amendment.
1960: Talley vs California. The court struck down a law that barred anonymous distribution of fliers.
1964: New York Times Co. vs Sullivan. "[a]lthough the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.”
1965: The Vietnam war begins.

...and so it continues.