1. Whether the Court should revisit the "actual malice" doctrine of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny in light of the advent of technological advances creating internet speech never imagined by our Founders or the Court and whether the same level of "breathing space" deemed necessary in 1964 continues to be necessary for Twenty-First Century speech.

2. Whether the District Court reversibly erred by ruling Petitioner failed to state any facially plausible claims under the law of Pennsylvania, and dismissing the same with prejudice, on the basis that the Plain View Project communications were inactionable opinions, as a matter of law, as the controlling law rather compels the conclusion that the requisite elements of Petitioner's well-pleaded claims, including as to actual malice, were and are amply stated and established to preclude such dismissal, and the Complaint must, therefore, be reinstated.

Whether the Court should revisit the 'actual malice' doctrine of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan