court in holland's never really x in fact excepts that sort of waiver and doesn't really deal with the fact that there is a mother and issue of that nature correct up which is the right way to do it with tennessee and horrible eighteen eighteen that's about all cell well the bottom line is most people though would look at this photo if it were accessible and that's one of the issues that hollins talks about that's one of the issues that further talks about i don't people would consider that to be obscene and obscenity is not a protected first amendment right correct  practice what do you think the basis is the reason is eight youthful persons brain as in a young man's brain is not totally mature if you believe the science until they're twenty six or twenty seven forty something that's another issue but twenty six or twenty seven so i'm not sure that the age here invokes any sense of maturity it is what they sat because they believe that a seventeen year old should be protected i assume and is this case similar to stevens which of course dealt with here it's a different situation but why is it similar to it's actually the topic of stevens's about rush videos it actually has nothing to do with because this case what the government was trying to do in stevens was they were trying to create a new category animal cruelty and it really was the target of the sexual pressure video for a fetish type thing   actors in any of the scenes platoons enjoying drawings and stuff and then they ok so it wasn't conserved we're not really that they were so much against it was the protection of the children and the broad analysis that's not the way should be looked at it's not the way really to approach this so they didn't analyze the way they also do last hollands as a basis to say that there would be no constitutional change i've written up fifty pages choose to we'll your time is up at this point thank you thank you mr rogers are before us there have to be places where the laws either seventeen and seventeen or eighteen and eighteen as well as seventeen eighteen as counsel indicated sixteen eighteen in some places so we have a wide variety of specifically this state has allowed a seventeen year old to consent to sexual contact us it doesn't make any difference if it's heterosexual or homosexual as well is is there reason t week that attention is still there and that's why we have statutory authority to allow for prosecution of what what we commonly call revenge pornography correct your honor i'm not sure illinois i believe pretty widespread at because the legislature the problem the good individuals will not understand or may not understand the ramifications will two of three of those the first two or three were not treating the seventeen year old as a child are we according to s that that doesn't exist in this case understands the i'm the consequences of his actions if he does something wrong we can prosecute him so why can't we treat him as a nine child or as a useful person whether he's a child or that only photographs of criminal acts are on protected in the first man and the criminal act is the actual photograph but they're not conducting a criminal act statute how do you respond to that in this case because it is not there is not a different statute whereby it is criminal like if he was charged with a violation of trust free floating test for first amendment coverage that sentence is startling and dangerous and this is about the about the bounty why i mean with all due respect you've talked about how the the assault criminal sexual assault statutes to a reduced age of seventeen then we don't have any problems here all right certainly from a legislative perspective would be maybe the right move it would remove a lot of confusion but the legislature for one reason or another has opted to treat these up the only way basically because they want i mean one of the ways to look at it is they want to charge people seventeen years of age with adult criminal charges  you get come all the way from florida terms of whether we should be protecting the child we must remember that this is a content based regulation this fall and it's presumptively invalid we know that stevens eliminates any notion that there's a special category of child pornography it's not a category we're saying it's speech incident or commission of a crime you also agree that there was no problem here that's what you're honest question i guess counsel it was consensual it was requested i believe by the child in the situation that has happened on brand there are widely sexting which is certainly not it usually involves the person taking a picture and then sending it out now we know adults can be convicted of that i think there was a