When reading this week’s chapter on new media and the state, I came across a point that we have touched upon before regarding regulation. Previously, we came to the conclusion that a universal paradigm could never possibly exist because every country has different views on regulation. This chapter discusses possible models for regulation of new media on a national scale, suggesting that national policies could be written into constitutions to control new media and to protect free speech and freedom of expression. I feel that, while this is a way for the state to deal with the evolving forms of media on a smaller and more feasible level, it also presents another problem with creating a collective means of regulation. By using laws and constitutions to enforce policies, the state could end up taking power away from the people and limit their access to other means of expression. Depending on the state’s view of new media, the laws written could either foster or hinder individual rights. To me, regulation on a national level could be just as impossible as that on a transnational level simply because the state’s power could end up being too great. What do you guys think?