Interpretations of the First Amendment draw the line between protected political speech and libel either thinner than a hair or as wide as the Massachusetts Turnpike. The law only allows for certain kinds of “barking,” but what even qualifies as a “bark”? Libel is illegal, but sometimes one cannot distinguish it from the rest of the political babble. Why is this? Has the First Amendment been applied too broadly to today’s narrative, or has society become unable to tell the difference between criticism and malice?