just is whether the statistics supports adequate the self evident rationale that it protects children to keep child sex offenders a where children play often alone or in small groups in areas that allow for both contact and isolation but this court has made clear that the general assembly be not have believe it is conceived in a way that balances just sell the respective benefits versus the harms but we can't do that this is a racial challenge that the children be actually in or even near her but your honor the it's rational because children often play in parks that's only possibility there's nothing in the well that's certainly the case but just the way we might imagine for instance that a in my present danger of a child sex offender operated a ice cream truck which is all and we said well in any case if there's not a child who happens to be buying ice cream at that exact moment is there a danger well sure there's a danger because a child may be walking down the lot about a person i see the fact that there's not a danger every single mom in every single car is  children star army soldier field when any of the other parks that are affected by the statute and that's why it's rational to prevent to prevent sex chat sex offenders from being in  that's important discussion is going on here the two point zero and you would agree that there have been statutes that have been found to not have that rational relationship and there's sometimes it just goes too far right there certainly cases where statutes are irrational ok so so help me figure out how this a court that analyzes what steps should the court go through to make to determine whether or not there is this appropriate sex offenders therefore sex offenders may not enter whole buildings where there are families churches that how  sort of hypotheticals you have to take before you come to the appropriate announcements and for instance so are those examples given you would have to look at the statute first of all and determine whether we did go through every single one of the question would be whether you have to first last go through those steps is this under the statute we can at first but as applied challenges as opposed to facial so there's some sort of as applied challenge to  participating in going to a political rally as a first amendment you might be able to raise that as a first amendment town and if you're grant going to grant park for a president l race you might be might be able to one vote you might have a first amendment challenge to that particular application you might have as applied but are talking about you know we can pick out again these are specific you know what kind of facts we have that those sorts of data analyses are limited that's that's exactly the reason why one of the reasons why we can't require back from legislatures was constant there were only six percent exact numbers of released child sex offenders where they said what does that mean they only counted the number of case isn't even something that you have to take place this case is self evidently rash and the only question is just how much is that back and that's again a question that's not even the constitutionality of a statute that permanently prohibit anybody labelled child sex offender or sexual predator from ever to or in the art institute running the chicago marathon just in barking  a building on public park land the trail conservation way trail way by way conservation area throughout the entire state of illinois regardless of whether a person is present much less a minor or even likely to be president and regardless of the purpose of the person being on this property or in one of the buildings on the property without exception it now falls to this court under the rational basis other sexual assault victims the assertion of a valid government interest cannot in every context be insulated from all constitutional protections the role of judicial review is especially paramount in this particular context where on the one hand we have a group of politically powerless and uniformly hated people and on the other we have people who visit the stations of power politicians here there and they're concerned with hopefully being real like we would all be concerned with the fact that we're talking not protecting little kids of course protecting children is a legitimate government interest the problem with the statute is that it has really little to no connection with protecting children child victimization doesn't the statistics actually although conduct that the legislature here didn't ban the general public from going into public parks that would be a ban on innocent conduct in normal circumstances but instead of banning what arguably are the worst sort of sex offenders child offenders and sexual predators from going into public parks i was how does the innocent conduct the night of cases relate to more akin to a felon not being able to carry a weapon or someone with their blood alcohol level of point point zero eight not be not be able to drive a car not to someone generally not just be able to be in a par relationship we have a statute that backs and justice thomas that speaks exactly to what the statute is intended to do that statute eleven dash nine point three eight prohibits a child sex offender from approaching contact people communicating with a child in the car and laugh that sex offenders and child is present that the statute which exists is targeted at much that's much more reasonable are there a huge number of them i mean so i have probably over thirty or forty restrictions professions limitations i would have to go look at each and every single one to make a determination whether i believe they  happened in parks we don't have anything that sets that we have statistics about entire set back that's a heap of their constitutional rights as citizens and taxpayers people who already paid the penalty for their crime if they want to do that then that method has to be reasonable and the method here isn't reasonable because it's just too exercise of first amendment rights even in the modern era parks are still a central venue for public gatherings to celebrate some is to protest others were simply to learn and inquire and i go a step further it may just be really clear so you are making a first amendment challenge and you're looking at first amendment challenging they i mean while we're talking about this is what i'm doing with that talking about how the first amendment activities are part is that i'm being present in the school zone if a person under the age of eighteen were present and unless they had permission to be there so it had limiting provisions  sex crimes are not committed by former offenders so it seems that even the statistical level i remember they say the same thing i don't know but you did say in your brief that it's three out of that it's one out of four seventy five or thank you reply diesel cars argument and the argument that there was a predecessor statute which prohibited the present only when there are children in the par and in other places and that statute there's a restriction based on that that would not be covered by the statute i point of the statute at issue here but under the other statute it would be true that a child sex offender cannot so what you're saying is the legislature made correctional decision the eleven greyish the night one with the requirement of children being there it's rare tional to have that as a law but it's also rational not to have that is that yes it's over there are the circumstances in which we might think that the statute doesn't shouldn't apply or that might be protected in the first amendment but as has been discussed over brad and the packing him case was a first amendment ok well seventy five percent don't read that twenty five percent do read and so hence it's somehow irrational to exclude everyone that's not the kind that's not irrational and in fact this was the exact argument