your argument first this morning in case fifteen eleven ninety four packing him versus north carolina mr goldberg mr chief justice and may please the court there are three principal features of north carolina's law that make it a stark bridgeman of the freedom of speech first section two two point five reaches vast swaths of core first amendment activity that is totally unrelated to the government's prevented in purpose mr packing and was not accused of communicating with or viewing the profile of a minor he was elated section two hundred two point five by speaking to his friends and family about his experience in traffic court and if today he were to view or respond to any of the thousands of twitter messages about his case in this court that would be a felony second the law does not operate in some sleepy first amendment corner and operates at speech on the very air platforms on which americans today are most likely to communicate to organize for social change and to petition their government third section two a two point five please go it please god it is a criminal law your honor that imposes punishment for protected first amendment activity without any regard to individual culpability or lack of culpability could or state impose this restriction as a condition of parole your honor i think they have much more authority to impose things as a condition of parole and and states do this all the time and they they limit people's first amendment rights i think that they if you had something that was as sweeping as this right right you're up and so both of those rights are different from the first amendment they're equally fundamental but they are different so in the case of voting north carolina does not take away with north carolina draws the line of people who have completed their parole their period of supervision by his release but in the richardson versus ramirez the court look to the texan history and tradition and said in section two of the fourteenth amendment there was affirmative sanction for felon disenfranchisement if you look at that same section which dealt with the people who were it were belled in the civil war you didn't need to restore their first amendment rights and with the second amendment when somebody convicted of a crime they immediately lose their second amendment rights they don't lose their first amendment rights so in the simon and schuster case this poor been decayed in the rights of somebody who was a serial killer who wanted to write from prison where he was serving a life se murder about his experience so it's a little difficult to tell you said look at the text in history we don't have a lot of history here concerning access to web sites and all the sort of things we're dealing with here so i don't think that's a very useful guide i agree your honor but i think when you look at when we talk about the history the history is there isn't a tradition or a history of taking away people's first amendment rights when the court said first amendment rights  it had a meaning when people my point is though you don't have a lot of history of having act having such sites or access where they can provide broad access to  minors of the sort that is problematic with respect to this individual well i don't disagree that we know as with violent video games as with any manner of new technologies that the court is confronted there isn't there isn't a framing era or for reconstruction era analog but there is no history when you talk about all of the things that the state historically has restricted they never said you lose your right to publish  newspaper because you've been convicted suppose we try to translate this into terms that would be familiar at the time of the adoption of the first amendment so suppose the state and that to the law prohibiting anyone convicted of kidnapping children from visiting a nursery school with with that be a violation of the first m m i don't think so your honor at the framing the first amendment didn't apply to the states but think no communication with a minor so i think it probably would be your honor i think that the difference here is if you take the test the narrow tailoring test which is fundamentally a this court had said in a quantitative test and you say what percentage of what you suppress implicates the interest when you're talking about communicating with minors or viewing the pages of minors that is going to the heartland of the protected interest that the state is asserting but here  everything that they're suppressing it's as we said it's indifferent as to whether it's who or speech obviously petitioner was convicted for saying thank you jesus god is good about a parking ticket to an audience but you think that even as narrowly tailored as just the skin's bergs example so would be a crime for a convicted sex offender or let's say someone who was convicted previously of committing a sex offense using the internet from contacting on the internet a person who is known by that person to be a minor without the consent of the parents of the minor that would be a violation of the first amendment so i think that i think that would be constitutional if i wasn't clear about that i would still say that there are narrow tailoring questions on that here to say that particular hypothetical law there one of the concerns with this law that i think you handled by narrowing it to a subset of people this applies to everybody on the registry and it applies in a essentially on a statistical basis on the theory that as a collective they have a higher rate of recidivism than it then people on average and i think this cour first amendment cases say that's a very problematic assumption to just be in especially with a population like this that is so heterogeneous and that is constantly being evaluated on an individual as basis it's not clear to video and your and your and your site and your cyber equipment and disclose if you are communicating with minors could that be a law that every that every  consent to that to that app and to that surveillance well i think that goes to the question of which we don't need to answer and i want to answer just a sort of myra's question as well in this case what does the status of being a registering mean in terms of somebodies constitutional rights i think that is clearly a much less restrictive from a first amendment perspective because then again people like mr packing and anybody who wants to do things that are harmless and fully protected is able to do it people have not and it is effective detection and deterred so from a first amendment perspective that's a home run there is a fourth amendment question there which is ordinarily once you're done with supervised release  you have full first amendment for home on who hit the home run i'm saying for the state your honor i think it does everything it's perfectly tailored in a certain sense except for the state has a sense of what you may be up to which is a  doesn't have the capacity to check message by message or click by click what a person is doing and in the absence of that that some kind of prophylactic remedy is needed and that's not unheard of  first amendment law and if you think of a case like person which is the fifty feet with in the polling places that's kind of a prophylactic rule so why wouldn't the same be appropriate here well your honor we obviously there are times when prophylactic rules are permissible under the first amendment mr packing hand and he was convicted he got a condition that said you shall not have any contact with the specific victim of this crime that would otherwise if that were applied to you or me that would be an abridgment of our freedom of speech so there is no general rule that the court has said repeatedly that you should be suspicious of for of prophylactic rules because ordinarily you don't want to you want to allow people to speak but even as we've been talking about rules like that are focused on teenagers on the internet and having specific contact with them those are prophylactic rules too so i don't think it's the question is can you do it at the first step and i think i do what is it what was your answer which i forgot a statute prohibits a convicted sex offender from being spending more than five minutes at a children's playground possible and as narrowly as possible seems to be a necessary condition is that a violator cannot go to a site that facilitates the social introduction between two or more persons and these are these are children they're talking about i guess for two or more persons for the purposes of friendship meeting other persons or information exchanges so we have to say or related information exchanges and now we have a definition that sounds as if they're talking about dating sites or it sounds as if they're talking about related playgroups sites if you take younger children and is it possible to read it that way and if you do read it that way is it constitutional well your honor a couple points to the first answer to the playground we don't i think you start with what is the first amendment right that is being a bridge i'm not sure that i see a first amendment right  wanted to be i wanted to get your answer and i think i have and then i'm really interested in the narrow possibility of interpret now really as i said and on that basis it's facially constitutional though it could be applied and constitutionally that's what i want your answer so your honor this is a criminal case it doesn't the rise as a civil suit in district court this is first and foremost and as applied challenge because the relief they were seeking is to overturn the can you're not you're not attacking the statute you're only attacking it applied to your client in a criminal case you the court has the power to say and i think it's appropriate in this case this the problem here is the problem for every application and that's what we were given and ok very much then right back to my question so i treating it as an as applied challenge i don't want to just repeat the question i were at your answer to the  t so the answer is your honor that this that narrow construction i'm not sure that that's possible and that there are construction isn't going to be in this case make any difference because as i understand your hypothetical statute or construction that is not mr packing and did not violate the law that way you don't wrong what i'm for all i'm doing is reading one word before information exchange and the word i'm reading is related information exchange and as so interpreted that clause to which you're much more familiar with than i am or seems to be talking about dating  the lower age level equivalent i don't know if that does what it says facilitates the social introduction two or more persons for the purposes of friendship meeting other person or related information exchanges i've now got it a social dating or equivalent site i think i can say that now if i say that is it constitutional that's what i'm trying to get your answer  wreck so that's that is my first and most important point that mr packer ham was not on a dating site so then the answer to this would be they have not applied it that way here and given the way they've appl here they can't do that i don't think we're going to have forty of the cases i don't think they've ever applied and i think the main focus dating sites tend to have age restrictions that go apply only to adults and so i think it's their position that those are excluded from this i think the state's position and you can hear from them they never proposed that as a construction because the they want to go after these these sites the classic social networking sites interpretation and just as prior to the language that justice prior is referring to and other language in the statute i think could for the purpose of avoiding first amendment problems be limited to who are social networking sites including facebook and things like facebook google plus that sort of thing and excluding a lot of the other sites that the electronic frontier of says are included like the new york times and betty crocker and things like that so it would be limited just to social networking sites would you agree that it could be read using constitutional avoidance it could be narrowed to at least those so honestly your hon i'm not sure that it can but it's very important for the constitutional question that that is irrelevant and this goes back to justice sotomayor is question which was what is the how do we win this case what is the the ground what is the biggest problem with this statute and the biggest problem it were limited to those records are our positions and for the very reason we've talked about which is that this is just like the law in the jews for jesus airport case from los angeles that said no first amendment activity in this place th a law that says no first amendment activity and it says that indiscriminate kind i mean one of my problems with all of these sites today is that none of them are purely or very few of them are purely anything anymore  something like link it which many many people in our society today are looking for jobs there but high school students are permitted to look for jobs and to post their data personal data on that site so is that traditional social media or not but i think the state says that it is because it meets the definition i just want to get back to just as long as the that's my point which is many people many businesses are using it for commercial advertising and that's very true and there was another defendant who was prosecuted alongside mr packing and was an i t person is christian johnson and he lost his job because to say why this is unconstitutional sure so the most straightforward basic doctrinal basis to say it's not narrowly tailored and stop there were overbroad which is the flipside sometimes overbroad is a is a confusing word because it as th third party standing dimension in the airport case it was used to say this goes way too far because it prohibits lots of first amendment speech so if you just take the word narrow tailoring test or you take the test in frisbee a taxpayers versus vincent where you say does this is the theory of this law that it restricts speech on the possibility that that will lead to some other harm that inherently is not going to be an ear taylor law or you can look at it the way war did woodward said let's look at how much of it is protected activity is suppressed how much of that implicates this purpose and again that's a really straightforward way now that we think and our brief argues that there are multiple problems if you go through every prying of the word analysis this is a really stark case in terms of alternative channels this forecloses as i said some of the most important channels of communication in our society so so you could do that you could say that too but what what the court said in mcallen is once you get if it's not narrowly tailored that then it's unconstitutional and i don't want to i mean under narrow tailoring i think it's incumbent upon you to come up with a narrow more narrowly tailored alternative so if you wanted to you're in a north carolina legislature and you're told you can't do this what would you do is the most effective alternative well your honor i i think the opinion in mcclellan said it was not incumbent on the challenger to come up with the alternative but here it said the state has to show that it seriously consider alternatives but i th or how is the i mean i assume that minors can put on the data they don't have to have their age in their e mail they don't have to communicate it in the text of the so message that's put on the site so i think the response might be that that's not terribly effective so to answer is that first of all if you look at page eleven of the blue brief where there is the closing argument  da in this case the da lays out what again this is not a case where we've come up with some exotic theory about how you could narrow this law and the da says to the jury in order to convict you might not like this law you might prefer a law that says don't have specific contact on facebook with minor children or a law that says don't say specific things that might entrap teenagers and this law doesn't say that it doesn't but even if you don't agree with it if you don't like it the law says he can't access so that doesn't say it because it wouldn't work he doesn't say that that law would be perfectly fine he says here's an alternative you might like maybe the legislature didn't enact it because it made the concluded that it wouldn't be effective well your honor i think it would be effective or ineffective exactly the same way this law is a factor in effect that the premise one of the things that the state argues about effectiveness is that this law will prevent people from doing something the only way prevents people is by punishing them and deterring them so it doesn't enable the state to fine people as justice kennedy was asking about monitoring that's a way that you can actually detect what people are up to the nature of this law is that it find it's most likely to find the people who are doing nothing wrong who have are doing innocent things and if you envision this subcategory of predators who are using the these sites they and lurking on these sites and they are going to do their very best to hide their identity mr goldberg why was your client using an alias i don't know what if he wasn't lurking or othe trying to stay hidden so your honor he wasn't lurking i don't think there's any basis for saying he was lurking because they then looked at his hard drive they got the information from facebook their crimes that they could have charged him with and presumably if he was doing something that was a serious violation by having teenagers he would have been prosecuted for something like that so the alias that he was using was at all put that in scare quotes was is name that he goes by and his middle name and that is his page had his picture and he had a public profile that linked to his father whose name is lester g packin him senior and so the officer in this case was able to find him in about two seconds and obviously he was posting publicly about something that is about religion and his experience of court that justice kennedy's question if you would witches is their capacity to determine the age of the user is there a way for the state should be able to track whether or not a potential defendant is actually in communication with the premier but well two things your honor this actually the state's description of the statute is always they already have a law about communicating using the internet  with a minor so they already had that that's a different law their theory of this case is about the power to gather information the second thing is that people's ages are verified by facebook and  a prosecution if the assumption was that the person was younger than eighteen they would then be able to verify that by getting the records and finding out if the court has no further questions i'd like to reserve the balance of my time thank you montgomery mr chief justice and they please the court for many years north carolina like other states had laws provide prohibiting sex offenders from being at physical places where children congregate schools playgrounds daycares and parks in two thousand and eight north carolina decided to prohibit sex offenders from being at virtual places were children congregate online specifically commercial social networking websites north carolina passed section two hundred two point five to cover the people most likely to certainly assault children unlike some of the all other alternatives or unlike the alternatives proposed this law is enforceable and effective person in this situation for example cannot go on to the president's twitter accounts to find out what the president is saying today that's correct not only the president i mean we're sort of aware of it because president now uses twitter but in fact everybody uses twitter all fifty governors or one hundred senators every member of the house has a twitter account so this is become a crucial crucially important channel of political communication and a person couldn't go on to those sites and find out what these members of our government are thinking or saying or doing is that right that's right however there are alternatives usually those congressmen also have their own web page as far as twitter well it seems to me i don't know if there we ever did have a public square but assuming we had a public square one hundred years ago could you say that this person couldn't go into the public square the the sites that justice kagan has described in their utility and their and the extent of their coverage or greater than the communication you could ever have even the paradigm public square in essence states have said that sex offenders can't go into the public square that they can't go into parts of they can't go into can't go near play be those have the same problem i mean what why why are we trying to limit that people all the time want to speak to eighteen year olds seventeen year olds it doesn't doesn't look at this even to those of sex problems with children all right this is this is everybody who's ever had a sex offense and you're not really i take it you're rejecting any effort that i might have hypothetically made to narrow the statute and you're saying i hate nowhere nowhere really because children are everywhere and idea of what is the difference i want to go to a park and i want to talk to  sixteen year olds about helping get some petition drives you know i can make in this examples so what's the basis here the state has a reason ya it does does it limit three speech dramatically are there other less restrictive ways of doing it we're not sure but we think probably as you've mentioned some ok and of case right now no our position is  the enforceable least restrictive ways for this particular interest that the state has about all the order about all the ways you just listed that they have all the case that you too would say you can't approach children and say certain things you remember you started that way certainly and those are the physicists in the physical world that they can't be approached it's a difference well there really is no big difference and that's why in the virtual world they shouldn't be allowed to approach either and the fact is the department of justice has reported that there's a fifty to sixty percent crossover from adult victim rapists to children so all of them no matter what who the victim was are capable of winning against children so that's why it would apply to everyone are you able to find out from the site operators from their facebook who one of the registered offenders is communicating with there may be some instances in which that would happen but most of these sites have an instant messenger feature or some kind of messenger feature which doesn't show up in other words a police officer couldn't go to the law to be a deterrent so that these offenders will not go on facebook whereas the detroit effect of facebook having the policy is not the same thing so the state has made a decision particularly in the area of information gathering because these offenders can go to these sites and can quietly lurk and find out information and there are links the crucial factor that the state believes that narrows the statute is that the site most have links to other users but i mean yes that narrows it it takes the new york times dot com out of the statute but it doesn't take the sites that people used today as i suggested whether it's twitter or whether it's facebook which i'm become incredibly important parts of our political culture of our religious culture if you ask there are surveys that say how many americans have communicated their fa social networking sites in in the past week and it turns out that one in five that's about fifty million americans use this for religious community purposes so whether it's political community whether it's religious community i mean these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights haven't they there are other alternatives still this is a part of the internet but it's not the entire internet that is being taken away from these offenders they can still have their own blog they can read blogs they can do podcasts they can go to new york times dot com they can do other things to communicate with people this does not prohibit sites that have discreetly just e mail or instant messenger or message boards so there are other alternatives and one point to make also about what's petitioner did in this case he was arrested for accessing facebook not for what he wrote on facebook so he did post something on facebook but this low prevented him from accessing fair you're not making a kind speech distinction i thought you had dropped that in your briefs no that's that's correct your honor although on the north carolina supreme court and certainly recognize that there was a conduct component to this just like going to a park or going to a playground but it is speech that's correct but the fact that he made a religious statement it wasn't specifically because of that he was arrested and charged and convicted for this offense but yes it is a speech that  or family member and he was able to find mr packing ham's father and then was able to see mr packing ham even though he was using an alias was able to see his picture and know that it was him and he was on the list of sex offenders so that's the way that he did this he apparently found six others or so in this session that were sex offenders on facebook you have a statute money i'm not sure about you know i can multiply these examples convicted we can think of pretty soon you're going to have everybody convicted of different things not being able to go anywhere and discuss anything well i exaggerate let's just stick with the we can't have convicted swindler is going on facebook to discuss money well swindlers or not such offenders and that's always that make a difference yes well it's like a different set of offenders have have been there have been civil disabilities applied to sex offenders and to other felons but certainly to sex offenders such as the registry itself is this court in smith to be done so that the ridges was was constitutional and lower courts have found that the restrictions on going to parks or playgrounds and those sorts of places are also constitutional these are some of the worst criminals who have abused children and and others and committed sex offenses and this court has recognized that they have  and are very likely to do this again even as late as twenty years from when they are released they may meet mr malcolm i can ask you a question that has to do with the law as exemptions because it just confused me when i was reading that it seems that some some of where the most dangerous activity takes place it's in chat rooms and via photo sharing the legislature in north carolina wanted to have some narrow tailoring to this to the statute so the fa exempt some of those things is really a virtue not a vice those are pure forms of communication and yes it just seems to exempt the stuff that's most easily used to to to do exactly the things that th statute is meant to prevent well this statute is is meant to prevent at its core harvesting of information anonymously which is not something you find as much when you're talking about chat rooms or or e mail or those sorts of things typically there's not the transparent amount of information or the anonymity that comes with the social networking website in which you can click on a link and go find out information about someone that you don't are other steps that may be taken and perhaps that would be one but but at this point the momente do you mean a brief that when you say not china could take other steps additional steps there are there are certainly other laws that could be put in place to try to prevent such offenders from finding out information when you when you just said to justice ginsburg well maybe that would be unconstitutional if they included these things that are instead exempted so you mean that there's a constitutional right to use nap japp but not to use twitter i'm not sure i understand that the  but you can't use twitter well snap chat as i understand it you don't get the level of information that you get from something else because twitter's you can find out much more information than you could from however many seconds of video or pictures or whatever you get will snap chat so i think it's it was a decision to go for the site in which the most anonymous information could be collected by an offender and then would use that to groom the child or otherwise use that information to go meet the child and begin a relationship so that the child you when you the case books are filled with cases where to allow certain groups of people to speak this is actually dangerous like the communists under you know years ago they said it was a good idea to have a revolution and all kinds of people have said dangerous things here you take a group of people who have done something wrong then fully punished and you are saying that they might say something to somebody which would be dangerous and you're right it might be on the other hand your remedy from that is to cut off their speech i suspect my law clerks in the space of half an hour would find many cases that put at the level of generality i just put half say it is hornbook law that you can't you can't unless there is at least a clear and present danger you know homes there are lots of qualifications so why don't you tell me when my look are going to look all these up and i think i have a few in mind what case we should look up to be sure we get the opposite which is what you're arguing i think this case is much more like burson v freeman in which this court's that this one hundred foot buffer zone a campaign free zone at the voting place was permissible and that was suppressing political speech i think that doesn't help you at all that that was number one it was applied to everyone it was one hundred yards you it's the one that i asked mr goldberg about because it's the only case that i know of where we've permitted a prophylactic rule where we've said not all conduct will have these dangerous effects but we don't exactly know how to separate out the dangerous dangerous speech from the not dangerous speak so we're going to have a prophylactic role that is like one out of a zillion first amendment cases that we've decided in our history and as justice kennedy says there are many reasons to think it's distinguishable from this one well the fact that it applied to all in burson i believe makes our case a better case because it doesn't apply at all it applies to sex offenders who have committed crimes who have shown that they cannot conform to i can't have the first amendment rights that everybody else did that the exactly the opposite of what was having a berson but it wouldn't be like singling out a political party these are people who have committed sex offenses again they have had certain disabilities already civil disabilities and this court has certainly said that felons can be prevented from having guns in films can be for prevented from voting here's a situation in which you have sex offenders who have committed heinous crimes and are likely to receive it isn't true vision like this ever added to the sentences as opposed to following from the sex registry as part of probation there can be certainly those sorts of provisions added for billing for parole for instance or probation they can be a condition a lot of times those are completely  banning the internet altogether and one of the things about that is that when somebody is own probation or parole of course they usually will consent to having searches done so it's a lot easier for a parole officer to determine whether this person has five computers or a smartphone or what they're using during that period unlike suppose it's hard to generalize but you have any idea what the period of parole or probation  then what's the statistical inference i have to draw or that people who have abused the neighbor's child but never use the internet will now use the internet to abuse a different child  because this rule is not being applied might just people who have been found to have enticed a child on facebook or some form of internet usage it's been applied indiscriminately t people who have committed a sexual crime of statutory rape or or even if they're teenagers but more than four years apart or something else of that nature what what's the inference that every sexual offender is going to use the internet to lure child well is this often impossible to know whether the sex offenders who use the internet when not unless they contacted the victim on line it may be impossible to know whether they use the internet and certainly is as far as recidivism you don't know how many actual offenses these sorts of offenders have committed when they have have been in rehabilitation and so they committed they've only only about five percent of what was reported is what came out when they took a polygraph so there's much more crime committed by these offenders than ever gets reported so the fact is that they could they could have used the internet for any of their crimes it may be impossible to know if they use the internet for their crimes some you would know but many you would not know find out who's played there the internet can be used for almost any crime grow any way those are even more speculative as to how many people would use that here we here we know from studies that about eighty two percent of online search crimes against children social networking websites were used to gain information about their likes and dislikes and sixty two percent of online sets crimes you so use social networking websites to gain home and school information so we know that there's a very high percentage of these offenders who are using social networking websites to find out information when they go on the school  they could go on a school website i'm not sure that those have individual information about students typically personal information that would be of the sort you get with a social networking website which is whether someone whether a child likes puppies or whether their parents have recently been through a divorce that kind of information can't be gathered from a school website and and again there are ample alternative channels here these offenders can go on noncommercial social networking websites they can go on social networking websites which only allow adults they can go to new sites they can use blogs podcasts those sorts of things so there are other ways and in fact most there are plenty of people who don't use these kinds of websites and find out their information just fine so it's not a matter of a necessity to have this sort of a website that you can go to how many people under thirty do you think don't use these sites to get all their information under thirty five i mean they're increasingly this is the way people get everything that on information is the way people structure their civic community life they do get a lot of information obviously most anything you can get there you can get somewhere else the news is typically not coming from  facebook it's coming from some other web site if they're getting news there there are other ways that people can communicate other than through facebook and certainly when you have social networking web sites like facebook my space  say as a sex offender we don't want you here you can't come here obviously there are always those people can get their information they don't have to use that to get that information from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas and first amendment includes not only the right but the right to receive information and you don't you know question that they are being cut  off and they are or they are being cut off and again it has to be remembered that these are such offenders who have been convicted of sex offenses and they should be cut all from sources of information that they can use to perpetuate their crimes against children and so they are being cut off from these particular websites but they have other means in which they can gather news that they can communicate with friends or that they can share pictures those kinds of things can be done in other places i do think it's important to make it clear that the statute does not include new york commentary by people who have created profiles on themselves having a public discussion tween them i don't use order that was printed in the new york times it appears to be a new feature of the new york times but it appears to be a common feature of most newspapers today that are printed online though they often do allow commenting but the requirement in the statute is that they allow someone to go to a profile page and on that profile page then links to people that they don't know where is that in the search it because i don't read the statute to impose that as a requirement so tell me create web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as links to other personal web pages so your read in this such as as a requirement but such as is not a requirement such as is just like here's an example but you don't necessarily need this the other way that it can be referred and then there are way would be if you had an implied colon after the word contain so that it really allows users to create websites or personal profiles that contain coal and then for different things one information such as the name or nickname of the user to photograph post on the personal or then you need an implied go in and an implied semi colon marks i mean if you just read this it's contain information such as a bunch of things which none of which are necessary but these are good examples of things that character rise allowing users to create web pages or personal profiles that contain information that's here it requirement really makes no sense not to have all four of those because that would mean that you could have the fourth one links but not the first one the name of the person well you know you might read this too you might read a personal profile to mean something more than just a nickname a personal profile the definition of a profile is a concise biographical sketch which seems to be  seems to refer to enough information so that you can get a an idea about who the person is why don't you read it that way and if you read it that way would it include new york times dot com no that still would not includ york times dot com because well our position still is that it has to have links so i'm not sure i'm answering your question as actually as i should you know i'm saying suppose  think that it's a stretch to get to links but it does require a personal profile and i wouldn't think that just a nickname somebody says my nickname is i don't know what  b that that's a part that's a profile no that would not that would not be a profile the other point is so would a name and a picture of your profile and your ability to discuss in that comment section personal information or public information whatever you want to discuss not not under our reading the statute still would require all four of these and one other point about that is ins in subsection before there was a list that starts with such as and includes a the word or were as and number three it has such as but it has the word and so the legislature certainly knew how to say or  have three other elements to it so there could be things you didn't finish your sentence in this instance the coach not a codefendant but the other person charged here in this case that's not before the court used initials so there could be something besides a name or nickname thank you mr montgomery mr goldberg you have four minutes remaining thank you your honor i'll try to make four points as the new york times our main that it doesn't matter but that said because it is overbroad as applied to any one site but that reading the statute doesn't work grammatically if you look at the a and the b it talks about sites that create web pages were personal profiles and in a it says to become members or create personal web pages so you can have a links requirement if there are sites that are qualify without creating web pages second when they told mr packing ham what this law requires and what this means they didn't say anything about links if you look at the state supreme court opinion they assumed and not just for decision purposes they said to the extent that the petitioner is right there are alternatives that they didn't embrace this construction and just recently on the question of snap chat after the state filed the brief which is all about links they prosecuted somebody for using snap chat which is a site that doesn't have links of the kind that we're talking about so that construction and as my friend is saying maybe somebody might understand what profile means but this is a criminal statute and i think if any of us were advising somebody on the registry whether they can do it the plain language the history the supreme court opinion all say you're in great danger of liability here steer clear and that's what the officer in this case when he was cross examined on that question that's what he said second thing about alternative channels this is there is the president there are also five hundred million tweets a day there are ten billion snapchat videos it's not just people under thirty i suppose that this case and come to us in two thousand and three before facebook was created would there be alternative channels than in two thousand and three i'm not quite sure what the in two thousand three the predominant area was was pat rooms and that that's explicitly exempted so i'm not sure sure what that what what they would be going after i think on the on the question is so there were people in le doux who did not have lawn signs but there are more than three billion people in the world who are using these sites a very small part of what i'm asking is whether the existence of alternative channels asks whether these are channels that people like to use or whether if the channels that are affected by the statute are taken away there are still alternative channels and i know there are people who think that life is not possible without  twitter and facebook and these things that two thousand and three was the dark ages but i don't know that that any channels of communication that were available at that time had been taken away so if the world targeted channels then why would there not be alternative channels now i think your honor you have to look at it as this is passed in two thousand and eight and you have to look at it in practical terms about what people's communicative life is and what they're able to do  if you look at the cases that have been forced those were that requirement if you look at lynn mark you look at city of the do or the two cases that have struck down laws even in the context of adult zoning the court has said that there has to be a substantial amount of accessible protected speech in the los angeles airport case that was one place these are the places where everybody is speaking and interacting and looking for work and petitioning the government every single representative their political debates the president is speaking to the people through this medium so it is an extraordinary argument to say not everybody does it i don't think that's the test the test is how much of your couper first amendment activities for clothes and the ability to speak with this networked group of people all over the world is and strong in this is as justice kennedy said well beyond the traditional  town square and i'm sure there were people who didn't go to the town square but that wouldn't be a basis for for upholding a restriction there the core point here though is that mr packing ham this law reaches speech that is fundamentally at the core i'm sorry your honor you can finish the sentence i'll just say this this case this wolf comes as a wall this is core protected speech there's nothing about it that implicates the government's purpose and the fact that he was convicted for a felony is why this law is unconstitutional