they seek to exercise their practice a core religious component of their religion by distributing vig an adventure tarion food to as many people as possible occasions of krishna consciousness with the court is most familiar with the probably involving literature distribution both in this corked and many others including the one since being court but this is just as important in all of those cases religious literature has been unequivocal you recognize as fully protected by the st amendment and in some cases the free exercise clause in this case the distribution of the same type food as a core religious practice it can only be prepared of course is that it we've referred to in our briefs and the question is believe that anybody who eats this shot him get spiritual benefit but of course in addition to that there's a free speech component  follow up with that is there any case that you have researched which holds that the distribution of food is inherently expressive well the fort lauderdale food love bombs comes close fort lauderdale food not bombs you have a circuit that's eleven circuit and that comes very close to holding that the food sharing in a public park to feed the homeless which was also  it's a symbol in russia show no the pav are not a show about passover the passage of the jews for jesus in thanksgiving it means freedom from from the british and overcoming i don't think they did make it clear the it was for the homeless i mean they had a multifaceted message that this money should not be spent on war food not bombs and instead should be used to help the homeless but what the expressive because of all the holidays are centered around food in the type preparations that are served at that time of the year they have inherent symbolic meaning but on the other hand in the surrounding context of the program as a whole this case is foursquare and food not bombs for lardo case there are banners there are tables there are there are there is literature being distributed there space on an as aggressive a schedule as you've indicated here when the university has authorized and offered space in the regular food area on on on occasions granted but what is it that gives the gives them some sort of priority to perform at that spot for as often as they want well st of all we contend that this is areas of public form it's open to the public without restriction its borders the free speech area that the university has set aside for that for free speech activities on its own accord and this area was assigned by u c l a and previous negotiations u c l a identified this area but there was no restrictions on your clients for using that area to exercise beach the only restriction was a limitation on the basis for it it's four times a year restriction right serving an outsider super super serving food at university that's correct your honor so we haven't got to that stage unfortunately after many years in the district we have not reached that point but i have to concede that yes the only issue in this case is on its face is food distribution as alleged in the complaint protect a warrant for free speech isn't protected by the pre speech case which was just decided by the supreme court on other grounds one of the required elements of expressive conduct that there be a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it particular that's the whole point of currently if i want to give give my speech at my own views across to people and i pamphlets to give them and i want to talk to them i might entice them to stop at my table by offering free really good smelling chocolate chip cookies i don't think that there's any argument that the delivering of the cookies under what i've just described my circumstance would be expressive conduct here as i understand it you're arguing that no the delivering of the food is part of the expressive conduct and where is the where's there allegations in the complaint or plausible possibility to those allegations that the people walking by andrew and walk would perceive and food they have signs they have banners they have literature they're talking to interested people not they explain much more you speech makes the food itself expressive food we say if we look at so many cultural and religious holidays the food i was tempted to go down this road in my briefing but the the medium is a massage the medium is the message that the only way that we can get people to stop eating being to stop this animal slaughter to address these issues with global warming and climate change and these factory farms is giving people and getting them to give up meat there's no better way and there is no other way to do that by here try this food eat this food and when they do they will do these other things if i offer you my passover i get that that's expressive if i offer you much so let's  so i may need it in other times of the year but it's still going to be like back to that basic holiday in which it is a essential component so if you have a catholic priest out there we're in the collar on a friday serving pish of that but they're going to still be here so if i say to you again you'll immediately everybody knows what's going on every day you open a paper beyond me impossible burger burger king this one actor jack black i don't know if you've ever heard of him he said he says time to go to would be the diet i'm giving up my hamburgers i love her you tube star she was a bigot and she converted back to meat and she's got a gig she didn't little program on campus and it does have these other features and we did those features before we saw the food not bombs which kind of came out of the left as a godsend for us at least but we already do that i mean  the st question is whether the conduct that is being regulated is qualifies as purely expressive and the nd if it's not doesn't require an interpretive study if it requires an interpretive stop then as that simon was saying and as the court it has to be communicative it does and it has to then there has to be a great likelihood that it's understood i mean there there are obviously your honor slight variance in the past over time i think in this case there isn't really a dispute  question was whether clothing optional to reste as right we're trying to convey a message of body positivity and image consciousness and what the court said is it's really just as likely that the image that you're conveying is the more you tip the less i wear and that's not protected activity here there is no great likelihood that this message would be understood you know counsel said to you in response to your honor's question everything is there in the complaint have to respectfully disagree with that if we look at the district judge's opinion and specifically i'm looking at document thirty nine dollars page six of eight footnote five the district judge said plaintiffs also state that a reasonable person would understand that krishna lunch is trying to convey a message because quote it is visibly conducted by the hari krishna group which is renowned for its vegetarian vegan food unquote citing opposition at fifteen the court continues plainest do not so they're coming to you now and saying we're the hari krishna as everybody understands that deacon and vegetarian food is part of what we are and that everybody's going to understand that particular rice message or even just that particular message they're not there are so many different reasons why people might consume the can of vegetarian food because they think it's healthy because of animal protection because they think it will lead to a higher consciousness because you know it's something that you know is a fad right now there are lots of different reasons i went and had breakfast down the road and turned out i looked at the menu and everything that i had on there was vague and and the message they were conveying is if you give me fifteen dollars i will give you this speech there are so many different reasons they could be saying we want to give you this week in food including we'd like you to join our group including all the reasons the council says but which have and then a latched i mean you again we're stick we're stuck with the complaint here i i grew up in southern california moved to chicago there were fewer krishna's in chicago than there were in southern california what i remember about the krishnas was they would chant they would the case that at that point we would we would then go in i mean as as the court is aware you know the in the in the edge case if i'm getting the procedural context right that came up on a preliminary injunction so there was evidence and there were declarations and so there might be an evident presentation and we might have that evidentiary class to show no one's really getting this message the message they're getting is you know we're getting vegetarian food other people are giving free red bulls other people are giving you know drinks right so wh complaint yes which i think is the operative complaint i believe it's the rd your honor i believe i believe so because i think i think it's the i think it was the rd they amended once it was dismissed they amended the nd time it was dismissed him and the rd time that was dismis here got the wrong complaint but i gather there were many there were there were there were no there were just like tweaks that's correct and a patient district court but it's a motion to dismiss so because they do leave the version of the complaint that i'm looking  reasonable inference from about what they are intending to convey but not about whether it would be received and that that spence and anderson all say this court looks at the context and so therefore wouldn't that be more of a question of fa walking by would have understood yes and i think a message right and i think that they didn't because i think that rule eleven would have gotten their way because i don't think that most people would agree with counsel that seeing her in prison distributing food would mean or would perceive or did the judge say that's something that's missing from the complaint well that was the that was the part i was just quoting to your honor i mean that they said you know what the what the court said in the nd dismissal order is i think you're getting closer and many give you a rd chance and when i st started looking at the case my sense was that this footnote was a road map to go put that allegation in the complaint and they didn't and there's a reason why they didn't and i think the your honor i don't think that there is any great likelihood that any particular message would be understood why why would it be the case that what they're really saying is look we're going to give you free food we would like you to come and talk to us and by the way we've got a restaurant down the road that you can had a message that she was conveying to people when she collected their absentee ballots to go and take them in the mail and that message was exercising the franchise through the post is a good idea the district court said and this court affirmed no it's not it could just as easily be that you're engaged in some sort of you know voter scam or that your hopes you know steaming open the ballots and in other words in ads the regulation was reasonable because it was attempting to stamp down on prostitution and on sexual assault on the brief those in the knox case the point was we need to have reasonable regulations to ensure that the franchise was properly executed in both cases there were allegations of specific messages in both cases this court said there's no likelihood that that message is going to be is going to be received and understood turning just briefly to the free exercise claim the plaintiffs can define their religion their sincerely held religious belief however they would like to define it that's not up to us it's not the court what can't happen is that a religion is defined in such a way that no regulation could possibly occur what they are saying on their free exercise claim is that by having a general neutral rule of general apply to belittle that limits everybody not just the krishnas but everybody to four times a year they're saying and a reasonable burden on their religion is happening such that again this court is going to is going to get the federal federal judges are going to start regulating who gets to serve food on the u c l a campus because that's what we're talking about we're talking about discovery talking about hundred eighty eight dollars attorney fee shifting we're talking about great expense why because they've defined their religion to say we need to distribute this food and your restrictions on our food distribution are unreasonable imagine if you will that a religion had determined that it was actually for these students these young people that counsels talking about that it actually was more effective most effective in conveying a message to wake people out of rem sleep and out of rem sleep that's when you would really convey the message best so you're going to go and walk around campus with a bullhorn say here here is what we need to control global warming or you know pro after terrorists or whatever your particular religious conviction is no one would suggest that a content neutral of rule of jet new truly general applicability would prevent the university from saying you don't just get to go around campus doing that even though you could agree that their religious message might be conveyed in their words more effectively if you let them do it that way yes you heard posing council say this was a public forum you can see no we do not that st of all that wasn't decided in the district court and we don't concede that it is not an area that for two specific reasons st of all there is no twenty four hour access to this area it is true that on drew and walk that is an area that that is allowed for you know leafleting and speeching and various other kind of proselytizing all kinds of different free speech activities and there's been no allegation that the christians have been restricted in going under and walking doing that but st of all it's not a twenty four hour unlimited so it's highly regulated secondly what the christians wanted to do is install a structure right so this was this was something where they were going to go and they were going to build a structure that were or install a structure there to do their structure well i mean they would what they would they would say would be they would say could be moved what they said in terms of the expenses they would be installing something else right that would be like a a table a stand with you know dishes and various other things there is no general no i we haven't conceded that it has ability to the district court our view is if it were to be litigated in a district court this would be considered to be if anything limited in terms of in terms of the public for its not a general public for the regulation that they were applying is something that is certainly is is is certainly viewpoint neutral right i mean it's not it's not singling out the christian as food versus anybody else's typically the opposing counsel goes exaggerate quite a bit of which in this day and age it's a very temporary of that and if you walk on the campus you use you like any day of the week you will see all kinds of tents structure cooking apparatus without permission but we're going to we're not going to have much of a footprint there and it's a very innocuous program it's in the area already set aside from that it's paid concrete and there already are benches and other facilities nearby  all reasonable time place and manner regulations and can satisfy them health safety insurance pedestrian congestion these are these are red herrings there's no issue with these things we can easily accommodate those concerns understand and we we pointed that out to us that the audience will understand what our messages and we've spent a lot of time talking about the social background the context the armbands and kin curve and the backdrop of the vietnam war so we've certainly alleged that in the context of what's going on in the world right now with climate change with global warming with the health concerns of eating meat with the debate between the new meat plant based companies and the meat industry that explain our our emphasize it is a core religious belief and practice and the supreme court i think has confirmed that our companion claims of speech in association are substantial and this court as judge will scan mine will know more than all of us in the thomas case established the test for when does six scrutiny apply to free slam dunk of winning on the merits ultimately down the line it just has to be a likelihood of likelihood a reasonable probability that we will be successful it doesn't have to be we're going to win on