✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [9/10]: The headline accurately reflects the central tension in the article: the new law and its potential First Amendment implications. It avoids hyperbole and clearly identifies the key actors and issue.

"New York's ban on 3D-printed guns sparks First Amendment concerns"

✕ Loaded Language [9/10]: The article uses neutral, descriptive language throughout, avoiding emotionally charged terms. Even when quoting strong language (e.g., 'censorship filter'), it does so with attribution and balance.

"“This is ultimately asking tools not to work for the creator and go through a filter, a censorship filter,” Rory Mir, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of open access and tech community engagement, told USA TODAY."

✕ Euphemism [10/10]: The article avoids scare quotes and euphemisms, using precise terms like 'blocking technology' and 'ghost gun' only when attributed or clearly defined.

"The New York Police Department recovered one 3D-printed ghost gun in 2021"

✕ Passive-Voice Agency Obfuscation [10/10]: No instances of passive voice obfuscating agency; actors are clearly identified (e.g., 'Hochul signed,' 'the law requires').

"New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law legislation requiring 3D printers to have blocking technology"

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [10/10]: The article includes voices from across the spectrum: government officials, gun safety advocates (Everytown, GIFFORDS), civil liberties groups (EFF), and gun rights organizations (NRA), ensuring diverse stakeholder representation.

✓ Proper Attribution [10/10]: All claims are properly attributed to specific individuals or organizations, with clear identification of roles and affiliations, enhancing transparency.

"Rory Mir, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of open access and tech community engagement, told USA TODAY"

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [9/10]: The article gives space to critics without caricaturing their arguments, quoting the NRA’s concern about banning 'books, videos, diagrams, blueprints' — a substantive constitutional analogy.

"Is Kathy Hochul also suggesting she has the authority to ban books, videos, diagrams, blueprints, instructions and lectures regarding the design and manufacture of firearms, even those that would be illegal to possess under state law?"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: The article avoids reducing the issue to a simple conflict frame and instead treats it as a complex policy and constitutional question, allowing space for both public safety and civil liberties arguments.

✕ Moral Framing [10/10]: The story does not default to moral framing (e.g., 'dangerous guns' vs 'freedom fighters') but allows stakeholders to make those characterizations, which the reporter does not endorse.