unprotected criminal behavior we need that is hence a separate protected speech from criminal behavior and it's clear the state does argue that it should be the objective test with the focus on whether a reasonable person would worsen the state of the threat but i think even if we look at the conduct issue in virginia the black we can see that that reasonable person objective standard doesn't work because in virginia black the issue with burning  congressional hearing and shouted and and disturbs the the hearing and the court even though the substance was perhaps protected was political speech the math and the manner in which the w what good one does it look at what happened here in this case and look at the the manner you say that the speech itself was just inquiring about the safety precautions of the school obviously  st amendment we need to look at the totality of the conversation in making this analysis in other words he's talking about guns and protection and where the children to be and then some comment about  which as a matter of common now is are fairly likely to provoke outrage fighting words are racial epithets they're standing in someone's face and think hate you or insult do something about it because when you look at all does he say it made me concerned i felt she because of the way the conversation was going the way he was speaking i felt i had to take the action to lock down the school her testimony was that he made a comment about having gone to the school when he was younger and because he expressed something that made her think he was familiar with the campus she was nervous and so she texted the principal as the next room and had someone on the phone  don't any act when the only answer is speech it's not about unreasonable man your speech can be under reasonable under the st amendment the only thing your speech cannot be is a true threat worth fighting work so in th if it falls on the definition of the true threat or if i didn't work that's that's all well and good and i'm not saying they disagree and there are certainly other element of instability in saying these words but there are exceptions to the st moment based on something being more right so we have to be careful that we're not creating some law here that as a result of the fact that we don't like what was so absolutely wrong and an unjust because teachers more o that's important to context i think the one of the things i think you'd agree if we use an objective standard with the statement moment that are correct what if he or someone else came to the school with a gun what would happen but a don't we look at there in the context and that's why i asked you earlier of the fact that he has someone's one role in the school and that he wasn't indicating that he personally was going to show up in school runs with a gun just that he reasonable or not i just and that's why the subject of we have to address the whole subject civilly element that justice tell us is going on you know i mean again i need to get on the soapbox but i just think that you know if people don't like what they're hearing most of the time they shouted down if we don't like what we're hearing it still made me have st amendment protections and again protected speech didn't feel the need to look at all to the speaker subject of intends to make that determination that i was protected speech in the context of a anti graft demonstration during the mr fischer and all those questions hypotheticals that were posed to the mystery when he says if and if his speech alone doesn't isn't protected of the st amendment before but has a produce of clear and present so i want to be very clear that you hold that fighting words are any words which cause a breach of the peace is to stretch that definition till it breaks that absolutely none with the u s supreme court says fighting words are and i would go back to inherently likely provoke a violent reaction it's not just words because reason it's words that we all know if you say to someone it will cause them to react violently that's what fighting words are and i think i'm going to just above public inconvenience and noise around rats it is not just that the police are called that does not prove fighting words it has to be this serious substantive evil of i said something that is going to cause you to have a violent reaction and the would not be fighting work and i think we have that here too we have words spoken over the phone and usually we don't have personally abusive epithets here we don't have insults that as a matter of common knowledge are inherently likely to cause a breach of the and the statute in the line it is a federal statute about lax and what the supreme court said is where this is a statute about rights we need to have proof that either the speaker knew  again the nd circuit said the person's going to be evidence that the speaker made the statement despite knowing some jack simply that it would be interpreted as right so there does need to be intent on the part of the speaker here in order to bring this under the purview of true it was unreasonable say there's no threat so we have people here in a conversation saying there's no right i don't see how it's possible there could be a true threat i'm protected by the st amendment exchange of ideas for mr swanson to call the school and want to roll the sun his primary concern wasn't rolling his son in a school that an increased security not a public school because he was concerned about school shooting he ask amendment so i think that whether the speech was on reasonable it's still protected by the st speech this unreasonable unpopular