i do not your honor so then tell me based on the evidence in the record and not the hypotheticals what is reasonable about the voice implication ban on the one hand and the prohibition hat so therefore we have to look at the text of the provision and not the facts and circumstances that are playing the particular case with respect to voice application there was and i believe an admission by play of counsel that there are they do believe there are situations and circumstances when the boys have occasion could drown out announcements relink by customer benders that are there also by the arena itself but the district court order specifically car that out implication the protest area that was set up is outside the arena and the arena has speakers throughout the area where the and give announcements regarding for example when there's a kevin hart concert you're not allowed to have  cell phones and repeatedly they would put over the loudspeaker that you're not allowed to have cell phones inside the facility there also the ability to make announcements regarding any safety or other related messages there's also the ability for where there's a set up for commissioner commercial vendors outside the billet for them to sell their wares and so the analysis is first it's official to attack so therefore we have to look at the text that's currently written in the in the policy whether it's has is it constitutional in all ways the court has says official tack test the last constitutionally based on the text alone and does not consider the facts or circumstances of a particular case if he should challenge is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully in a player can only succeed in a facial challenge myself and there are no set of circumstances exist under which the act would would  understanding what the major problem is here the issue would be whether the those the text as written in the policy whether that is unconstitutional whether by the by the words or lip listed in the policy whether it is unconstitutional in all ways and it is our position that the way the policy is currently drafted it is not unconstitutional there are circumstances that it may may be a pickle may apply to and so  being proactive so it was a situation where you just said i don't know what does that mean at that point the reader will be stuck reacting to a situation as opposed to having a set rules in place so that everybody knows what  framed it for you the question is what you're here on appeal you know you don't like what the district court did so tell me what is it just boy simplification for the moment what is it about what the district court that's problematic that's what we're trying to figure understand the problems it the it puts the arena in a difficult situation as to not knowing what the district court will believe is satisfactory in addressing  particular search situation that occurs that point in a hypothetical that you think is problematic you won't know what to tell your client well equipped the question is for the client at this point the way it's currently won't be able to do because of what the district court ordered that they want to do and he is within the ambit of the first amendment and not violat court your client just would have absolutely no idea what to do well your honor it's not also situation not knowing what to do it's being they would have to react after the fact after the issue occurs they would then be in the situation where they have to run into a cook into court and have their issue have their issue decided on that fact they would have to figure out what the judge you know what the judge just kind of speaks income generalities it doesn't necessarily don't believe that there's a constitutional right to be able to use a voice amplifier but to the authorities power to craft it tailored rule that may restrict protesters from using voice implications specific context in order to prevent potential interference with other permitted activities within the re it in the position of the remit is that there is not a right to use a voice implication system therefore the constitutional constitution does not apply first and them does not apply to the use of that particular  there is no restriction on what they can say there's no in terms of whether it's a a a sign or just word of mouth or handing out leaflets they're able to do that there's no restrictions that it just talks about the use of a voice amplifier in the particular situation whatever they're using oral communication there if they're as you said they're protesting regarding particular state trooper or whether it's a or in this situation was a circus they're still able to to exude into two states to set forth that message to the people who are walking through your walking in and out of the arena so really protest policy but it does not only apply to two patrons or two protesters only what is the band say that  that says that any promotional verbiage suggesting vulgarity or profanity is not permitted use approved profanity is prohibited so it's within the context of a protest policy but there's not mean that it only applies to policy only applies to protesters and and so you're singling out protesters with this ban on profanity but nobody else at least has  the problem is that you're this is targeted to protesters and no one else isn't that isn't that the constitutional problem that it is that it only applies them and it's not a broad based policy piece it's viewpoint neutral it can't be because doesn't apply to anybody else the particular policy here that has the most support i don't think it does your honor i think the district court was right to find that the defendants had not met their burden i'm living outside arenas like this i think that both those cases can be distinguished with the best in case of an under porter the e p a decision i think frankly it's wrong and i was looking at the wrong standard when it when it dealt with the wells fargo arena the hawkins case out of the ken circuit deals with the denver gallery had a space and that can be distinguished from this case because of the nature of the form there the cop the context of the facts there were much different you were dealing with a narrow corridor or that hat was bounded on both sides and had was the only entrance and exit to the to the arena or to the performing arts area and the theaters there and it was also used as the essentially all expressive activity but i think the case is distinguished on its fact that the faction also does not fit very well with the supreme court's decisions in that consider leafletting in various places that the supreme court has allowed leafletting and has refused to uphold bans on leafleting in places such as airports sidewalks outside of post offices on military bases on herat and in a mean they're very close to the door i mean the point here being you can't have somebody at the door because that affects traffic i agree with that for part of what you said your honor you absolutely i arena would be fine with it creating a buffer zone of fifteen feet or cell around the entrances to the doors these are well beyond fifteen feet but where they designated these areas it may look like that on the on this picture but i urge the court to it would be reasonable to have a buffer zone around the doors to allow in grass and grass and to tell people not to approach patrons as they were stuck in line because there's a better argument there that they are a captive audience here they put them to the sides well away from the doors well away from the lines and well away from where anyone can really even hear or see them and it's a an effective ban on any activity in the form you can't even see them look at this that's impossible yes they can see them in your honour's there's testimony in the record that when patrons approach the gate most them come to the east gate they they line up in multiple lines and maybe the people on the outermost line could see them in the distance frankly but all the people there purpose for why they put these issues related areas in it has to be a reasonable connection between both the purpose and what they did and here they have not met their burden of showing that there's the restriction was reasonable so somehow you're saying this is what designated protest area to you would be reasonable what would you do where would you move these areas i would not have barricaded areas that all i would create the reverse and have a buffer zone where they could not get close to the doors maybe fifteen feet and i would tell them not to approach patrons as they were stuck in line but other than that i think they should have free range to wander this space it's the district court down it's a it's tens of thousands of square feet only reasons that the defendants gave for this were that one they wanted to prevent protesters from intermingling with and interacting with patrons that's not a valid government objective they also were worried about crowd control and i think the district court correctly found that if they wanted to do the buffer zone or if they they want to do this rely on their basic powers to ban people from bringing weapons and wearing body armor carrying up in flames inciting violence making threats all those things are valid exercises of their powers and if ever a fight was to break out there are police at every event that could lawfully take action protestors from using any of the amplification and not to apply that evenly i think the district court rightly gave the defendants a roadmap here and said and said if you're worried about your own messages being drowned out  messages of vendors being drowned out you have a rule that says don't use amplification when those messages are being broadcast i don't think would be difficult to administer and and and that would be i think if the defendants you know went that way we would we would talk with them about we're not going to challenge things that you know it's reasonable is not the most the easiest standards for us to get get over but you know here where they're banning all amplification by protesters it's just not promulgated such a policy we'd need to look at how it played out in the real world i don't know sitting here today whether it would be reasonable i do know that having no amplification is unreasonable but about  profanity is a protected speech on the first amendment and there's a good reason for that and full garrity also is protected speech and the fact that they are only applying these restrictions to protesters and there is no evidence in the record that it was applied across the board patrons is unreasonable because it just doesn't make sense if they're worried about offending people that's typically not a valid reason for a government to ban profanity or go garrity but even if in this particular context they thought that profanity which is harmful or somehow there's no it doesn't make sense to then only ban protesters from engaging fan what if they did profanity across the bar again your honor i that's not what they've done it what they've done is just banned it by protesters and so we'd need to think about frankly whether that is reasonable they have to come up with a legitimate reason for doing that and right now you know they they've got monster truck rallies ice hockey concert rock concerts disturbed is coming up i mean if they're worried about profanity i would be more concerned about what's going on inside the arena and the patrons inside the arena writes my mind with such it crossed my mind you do you have you said that you would suggest a buffer zone any buffer  show that it you know those reasons were furthered by that by that policy that's not what we have here they did they didn't go that route you brought us to go to be the first to put a buffer zone in non public for no your honor i don't think you need to get that far i think you can simply say what they've done here the designated barricaded protest zones is not reasonable that's all you need to say but what would be reasonable and you said buffer zone it's not something that has come up i really think that it would you know again have to look at exactly what they did and that in that context leafleting which is really what the plaintiffs were trying to do is historically going back to the founding of our country is a vital practice and it is i believe it has been described by the supreme court as a historic weapon in the defense of liberty and that's in the one nine hundred thirty eight marvel vs city of griffin case and throughout the decades the supreme court has yes your book you can you can have leaflets in this designate a protester within that small area they were allowed to leave but the evidence was suggested well first of all patrons were not able to get into the barricades because it's barricaded area but the evidence showed that when they were in the designated areas they were effectively prevented from leafletting anywhere because they handed out so few leaflets and they could not get out into the rest of the paved area this tens of thousands of square feet of your area took to distribute leaflets so it almost effectively cut it off because it or any attempt to have leafleting in the parking lot the i first of all i don't think that would makes it would be reasonable because the safety concerns the defendants prior to this lawsuit have been putting pams the leafleting designated area out in the parking lot as a result of disparate lawsuit discussions they decided they would move them onto the sidewalks i think for safety reasons and to keep them out of the area which is again right next to the entrance and exit of the buildings so it's not a situation where they were put into the back corner of the parking lot away from him because they are right near the meat of the action there's a reference to  that because of an airport to really have a bold type purpose situation if it was just an airport where he flew in and out that was it she would look at the issue a little bit differently and she actually said in her decision in her decision her concurring opinion which has been viewed as being the majority opinion on the issue she had said that she would be ok with limiting it to a certain area of the airport terminal so even the judge justice o'connor indicated that it would be ok for a government agency to truth is a valid government objective that was found by the hopkins case by the tenth circuit by this court in the middle wins case the individuals who go to these sports arenas these entertainment arenas they have potentially here there are lots of just walk around handing these leaflets it could create a an issue with regard to the movement and the orderly transfer transmission of the people through the facilities to be noted that this is not a public area this is the sidewalks were this these areas protest areas are are confined to the arena there and they don't connect to any kind of public space they're only designed to set up the transfer  people more easily and cheaply reached by some trick perhaps or without cost from some zealous supporters not enough to call forth constitutional protection and also it talked about there long as there's simply no restriction upon the communication ideas or discussion of issues by the human voice by newspapers pamphlets of the like censored that meets constitutional first amendment protection so i would argue that there is not a right to a first amendment right to use the voice