law judge the language in the order that referred to that one literally subsumed within one sentence i believe and it's very difficult conduct and he used the exact words in order sending unsolicited unsolicited to anyone even a public figure of a case gun rights was inappropriate indeed disgusting and then the more operative language the bottom that paragraph intentional infliction is difficult to understand how judge could find that this was inappropriate discussing the e mails that should not be sent in a civilized society when that's exactly dander for instance on that one particular state law judge but it's difficult to glean when that finding is made from the face of the pleading in the exact words are used in a match up with that particular element is somewhat difficult to pull away from that the district court you read the district court's order in going up to this conclusion it wasn't tortious and scenes from the language of the short of what the district court focused on was whether they were threatening almost like the comparison that was being made was again there's a recognition here that these are something that should be tolerated in a civilized society which is a fairly high standard i mean i e d claims are hard to prove for that very reason and yet we have this recognition by the district court that this isn't conduct we should tolerate in a civilized society which i think the court to come out and say that knowing that matches up with that element when we look at the analysis the analysis seems to be to even know whether that was what the district court and the court i think was clear enough that it was basing its decision both on the claim that the specifically said that our supreme court in the u s supreme court recognizes there's no force remember protection for speech and intrudes on the privacy of the home getting past the st amendment was still a viable claim there based on the flyer that right that fair to say judge i would say it's publicly available i don't like to use the word advertise because it implies that it's being used for some sort of commercial purpose for public availability let's just think about advertisement announced for the purpose of allowing people to know how to contact the lobbyist who tried to influence the lawmakers on the topic how do you get to the part where he was a captive audience in her own private address and of anyone to judge me anyone and send them a mailing that would otherwise constitute tortious conduct for having a fundamental disagreement about whether it's a private address i mean it seems to me that is to work site address and particularly in today's world well you know people send things from all over and in this particular case he was from california this is how people reach  association with her lobbying there there's one email and only one email it was certainly at the time of this available publicly but judge if the court will look at the shirtless case which  it is short list the court recognize very strongly the supreme court's constant consistent holding we have a right to be left alone my client is a private actor she is not a government form this was not public speech in a public place with numerous people engaged in some vigorous debate over public issues this is one private after sending another private person a gory picture or a picture of mutilated it's a cryptic no judge i do not think that the district court or any of us can know because we didn't get to a point where we can ask but from a st amendment perspective the content in and of itself  a private person any more than he would have a right to send a private letter to someone with content that they didn't want intruding in their mailbox and she has absolutely no obligation to accept it without ok i think we are  an incredibly high standard for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress whether conduct is outrageous enough as a question of law for the muj liberty mutual the steadman case the standard is that the conduct must be so outrageous in character and so it's stream and degree to go beyond all possible bounds of decency that cam case says that it must be so the emotional distress must be so  ten times in the finest him play mr sorenson sends these messages with his address and his correct name and therefore his e mail address to her and says dear ms hamer thought you should see a few photos of handiwork of this all rivals you support less than a half hour later he follows up and says this photo documents the effect of an outdated military rifle on j f k today's assault rifles are far more destructive so i think the court is following the right line of thinking and agreeing with judge handle that these comments are not so outrageous in this context as to  forth a tort which is a question of law with respect to the intrusion upon seclusion claims you get to the same place in terms of the level of outrageousness if you look at the often heim can case which is a middle district of florida case in two thousand and ten construing florida law like in the burden for the intrusion intrusion i'm seclusion tort to be similar to that for intentional infliction of emotional distress so we end up at the same place and as the court mentioned stoddard vs wall fart a florida case held an invasion of privacy claim should be dismissed based on two telephone calls which were much more intrusive and much worse than what we had in this case when the person said you're mine and then another phone call inviting the recipient to perform a sexual act that is the level of question should we counsel i mean it seems to maybe for us to reach it we would be half having to conclude that the state common law claims  florida somehow violate the federal constitution and if it's a complaint fails to allege claims center state law and we can avoid that constitutional question isn't that  more appropriate way to dispose of this yes i agree with that i think if the court were to go beyond that the snyder case is very significant and our case is even stronger than the snyder case because here we're dealing with a public figure there's no question that the plaintiff has a knowledge that she is a well respected nd amendment lobbyist and of course that's a natural place for one that wants to speak about this issue to go to such person and the snyder case the supreme court said that you have to look at the speech itself and see if it's of public concern there was a private speaker also and the snyder case but whether it's a matter of public concern is determined by the term and by the comments and that includes the context the form and the content here the content is just very confused yes you could decide this case without ever reaching the constitutional analysis but you know how lawyers are and so i think it's protective of this  right and it did relate to intentional infliction of emotional distress an invasion of privacy claims but i do agree that it is a question of law florida standard is extremely high the level of outrageousness can't be met by this communication with the lobbyist and polite manner in the pictures are gruesome but sometimes that's what some people think is useful to convey their point judge for a moment there opposing counsel walk back into the constitutional argument i understand i think i understand you don't want to hear that at this point but i will you can argue what you're one i just seemed to me to be pretty clear that we don't have to reach that question if the state law claims fail as a matter of all he's great with i would point rose to a level of being not the conduct we tolerate in a civilized society and there's there's there's difficulty understanding how the stuff plausibly recognizes just with the intentional pushing claim not to find a lot of cases that look like the court to tolerate it more outrageous allegations than what we have here judge part of that we may be drifting a little but would be at least the way we see this he says e mails with multiple graphic pictures pictures of president kennedy's head blown wide open a picture of a leg decimated by a bullet and the response to why it was a tortious was i was engaged i was trying to instruct her i was trying to educate her with these cryptic bizarre captions and we believe in that respect if we're going to be in a sort of regular shocking even would be my argument but subject to some sort of subjective debate on that but you know in that respect we look at this order and i understand that many by many thank you that this could be an constitutional grounds we would just echo what we've said in our papers all along falwell sullivan snyder they're just completely in opposite case they're all public formed by a public forum case one thing just because they're not doing align with this into a degree i think it dovetails with this it's not tortious finding in opposing counsel touched on a little bit but the method the mode the place everything all the trial court looked at