Bad Breaking

First-some house-cleaning I am going to start doing some investigative reporting along with the op-ed pieces everyone is used to.  Hopefully this will interest and invigorate everyone.  Now on to business.
The TV show "Breaking Bad" recently featured methamphetamine that had been colored for marketing purposes.  In a classic life imitating art a form of methamphetamine is now being produced called "blue meth".  True to its name, this form of meth is methamphetamine tinted with methylene blue.  Other colored forms of meth have been on the market including pink meth which was colored using red dye #5.  Blue meth however is making people sick.  This is because methylene blue (Unlike red dye #5 which is approved for human consumption) is used as a stain in labs and a potent disinfectant.  The makers of meth likely used this rather than the FDA approved blue because bulk methlyene blue is cheaper and easier to procure (food coloring isn't cheap), however blaming the makers is an exercise in futility.  Makers are interested in the same thing as every business man, profit, and their product isn't exactly safe to begin with.  Encouraging them and giving them ideas (like coloring a dangerous drug to make it more appealing to their customers and potential customers) should be something we frown upon, not something we include in our TV programming.  The question here is not whether or not "Breaking Bad" was irresponsible or even liable for making an existing problem worse (the last thing meth needs is to make its users MORE sick), but rather whether or not we should prohibit programs from showing content that they know encourages illegal and dangerous activities.  It is a fundamental question that has been debated in the halls of congress and in the courts.  Both seem to agree that every case is different (with a few standards, like not shouting "fire" where no fire exists or inciting people to riot, etc.) but both desire a standard for what speech is protected and what is not.  So what do you think?  How far should free speech go before being prohibited or even censored to some extent?



James Bianco, Valeyard