allow unlimited scratching because that is the first day it's overbroad and therefore it also brings up the issue of being able to challenge it you know in the city of liquid which is plain dealer and you also need it know to your honor administrator and it doesn't allow the opportunity for this quarter and even other and other courts review that and what do we have wrong here we have wrong here to particular things which clearly violate constitutional principles and that would be one of them to acceptable and we believe your honor that you've made it very clear that even the policy itself must be looked at as to the manner in which it is interpreted by the administer by the judicial or the administrative body of the person that's doing it in this case the port of portland the person that is assigned review the content of literature very recently your honor you wrote and your concurring opinion in the not overseas the at all it's not just what's within the four only the policy of what he saw as the written policy rather than looking at what is understood in this case and it's undisputed in the valleys don't even go against us on the factual matter that they do engage in content review well i would let me answer your question first to say we never apply let me answer that question that city of lakewood case already resolved that's not even necessary as quoting from city of lakewood which you recently on which you also re us we do in this regard we know the policy itself doesn't allow horcoff or at least that the prior restraint the one where you have to have a sit down meeting with the policy administrator in this case we know factually and it is true in the disputed that our clients were told you may not return to this therefore you may not just your literature until you have a meeting and sit down meeting and train with  us now you see that is additional discretion that's not within the policy and they have applied it against us to say you are prevented from coming back until you jump through these extra hoops in other words they're making it up as they go along and  as held and forced by you cannot just look at what they've got written down we must look at how they interpret it and they did apply it by saying to our clients stay away from here until you come back and you do all these little technical things we told you to do making the prior restraint even more in the summer because again they're just taking things out of context and saying that we can look at the the words on the policy but make up anything we want to and if you don't comply with whatever we make up as we want to as we go along then you cannot distribute even hand out one single piece of paper we're not going to let you do that so if we agree at least on one point that there isn't vital discretion we do therefore versus city of las vegas those two points i wasn't in the majority it's yes you are but the point still remains that the case law is solid there and you wrote that looking to you looked at lakewood anyway  the holding liquid case was this and it looked for these developments i'd like to point out and that's why i think answer the question one would this unbiased discretion cause self censorship or would it create some post hoc ad hoc excuses and decisions on speech by the administrator that's the first point and second point would that regulation itself touch on what is free speech those are the two elements that are necessary to look when you have unbridled  apply and we find it truly is at the heart of our concern with this policy and i'm not sure how many years this this this particular part this particular very few lation against it is i'm sure what exactly is in title general rules and regulations i guess at that point authority says an unlimited number of locations will be assigned that any particular day in the airport terminal building for the exercises free speech right and they will be assigned by the terminal supervisor and first come first serve correct your honor in that regard that sounds to me like if you apply you get your permit but you that's not entirely true because we and when we're talking about the locations i want to make clear what we made clear to the magistrate judge which is this are not arguing about the necessary locations themselves we're arguing that again discretion was utilized to allow another group to go in a location that would even be within those limited number you see so here we have again another example of this discretion being utilized so that the favored group the airline attendants and those people who it doesn't matter whether or not you've applied the very existence of the regulation itself causes harm looking at for whole versus alabama supreme court said very clearly it is not that direct the ministry or m indiscretion should not be allowed in any regulation of politics who is to know what is objection or of offensive to the public if you not even allowing judicial review of that decision then the person is there constrained and never again having opportunity even ask a person who is perhaps more neutral to make a final decision they don't allow that they're going straight to policies as they've had well staffed with for quite a long time as trying to miss sorenson passed down supreme court is noted we're standing in the shoes of the public in general to say that they shouldn't be allowed to ban speech what might be offensive and and here's an important point in the rosen case the court brought up previously that our type of speech could very well be offensive to the public and in fact it is offensive to the public the religious dispute debate is one of the few things in our society that people argue over so therefore how can we be assured that they won't do so in the future not just against our speech but other speech and so we're standing in the shoes of people who want to speak and who want to have a message that might be offensive to any administrators that come along and here's another point about that we're not talking about just miss  we're not talking about her because she's just taking over the job she's been in now for years to years i'm never going to listen but she's replaced someday someone else comes along and that person has a different sensitivity to different messages so we'll never know in other words if you up the whole this regulation that says they can censor offensive or objectional speech then what you're saying to all the ninth circuit people below you and all the airports and everyone's regularly that you can do this you can go ahead and say offensive or objectional speech can be barred and there's no so there's no limitation on that and you don't have to worry about judicial review either and you certainly you're going to say it's going to be allowed in official public for also regarding the prior restraint matter there is no dispute that there is a prior restraint there's there's no question whatsoever it's clear that you have to apply before you c  ever speak and here we have additional unlimited discretion because they've created parts of the policy that aren't written in the policy to say before you can come out and hand out of these paper not only must you fill out an application we're not even going to give you an application and you come here and sit down with us and have a meeting go through training that's nowhere within the written policy but it's something that they've been trained to do and it's the way they implement  is chase really divergence between the two parties is what is exactly what and your honor you brought it right up front is it and as applied challenge based on what might happen what would happen or looked at the language of the ordinance which says that this is the process once the permit application is filled out it will issue there was some be before but it's on it's your thirty one and it's under your limitations and then it talks about the policy and it says that any party it's decision can it deny the permit based on viewpoint it simply says they apply and here's the here's how it's going to be administered so on a facial challenge which is wh what you have is offensive then it would be an issue on a facial challenge the speculation about what night may happen how the ordinance may be construed or interpreted is not relevant and the trial court held  that question is the type of question that that would be more more challenging i think if there was an as applied challenge like the court said in the southern oregon part of their case  very well that hasn't been the history there hasn't been any evidence that the administrators have in fact used that lack of a time a specific time frame in some way to deny somebody were under construction they allowed this group to refloat in the baggage claim area that in another itself does not somehow create on fettered discretion the minute they accommodate a free speech request because of a concrete problem with their their designated space areas that it suddenly becomes unconstitutional it wasn't based on viewpoint it wasn't based on the land them decision well there's nothing wrong with the designated areas but we'll let you go to baggage claim so there is nothing at first amendment ordinances that have been adopted by nonpublic forums the only question is is the limitation reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum that is the only question reasonable means is that arbitrary is precious the ordinance itself sets forth why they adopted this ordinance traffic issues congestion issues construction issues security issues that there is nothing about the reasons that this ordinance was adopted that are unreasonable nor were they chant no or not a point of challenge those reason include that is the policy does not include the objectional or or offense it's regulation of censoring that they're saying the policy is not what policy is what is written and the policy is also the fact that they can censor in van objectional or francis speech that is the policy we're challenging that on its face you know but not that it has to be applied challenge that policy honor she has all this time review it and then once she gets around to it she'll typically go ahead and issue them but that goes away from saying something different which is i will issue than the same day i get in fact in our case and we show in the permits we put in the record that that is not true she does not issue in the same in other words i want to really hopefully clarify to this court we're talking about we do have a facial challenge to what the policy is and i think there's some confusion of what is the policy the policy is what this person says the policy is as they've been trying to utilize that policy and that's what the minority case help that's what the courts might help and as far as any proof that they've denied it us or anyone else that's not even relevant the supreme court specifically said these words in former bush as alabama it is not merely this braddock abuse of power by the sensor that the constitution means prevent but pervasive threat inher from that airport and no judge could ever even look at that decision and if you have a firm of this magistrate did below you're saying that this airport could say to someone you can never come back here thomas versus chicago part was the stin different in that regard in thomas or chicago park they could let them not return because they would not have paid what damage they previously caused to that that facility that's totally different from this in grossman there was no permit