otherwise that promotes or northen the violence unlawful activity for any groups out but idea and are also challenging special conditions for which are in part and to participate in the probation up computer and internet monitoring program comments that he made which are part of the record were protected st amendment protected statements themselves i understand and it's important that those comments are not directly before us and is not  you would let me ask you this just to follow up with your answer be different that is those statements which still be protected by the st amendment if they were made while he was not supervision well right now if you were to make those statements it would be a violation of probably be ugly be a violation of special conditions for it and that's the problem that we have right now is that those statements he would not be allowed to m of supposed suppost suppose one could fashion sufficiently specific condition i guess there are two questions one is does a court have the power to prohibit statements that incite violence and then the nd question is can it be done in a way that is sufficiently specific to give the supervising notice the speeding and know he came to the attention of the joint strike force with regard to terrorism matters because of his postings on his facebook page so i don't know how this isn't some way related to some of it but not necessarily is promoted and said that the fall of christ's church had really done a good job and that they ought replicated in the united states so i actually i don't i don't understand how that's not in some way connected to what is criminal activity was it seems to me it my name is to funny lee and i represent the united states turning to judge chen's question whether or not whether or not the court has the power to limit an individual speech while they're on  supervised release i think the answer is yes this court has said that district courts have wide latitude when it comes to crafting special conditions of supervised release what the supervised release condition needs  tethered to is that there has to be a reasonable relationship between the condition to the statutory factors governing sentencing and then secondly that there are there are there are  said that the conditions here were reasonably related to the nature and characteristics of the defendant while they may not have been squarely on point with the offense the issues are are they tethered to the interest of the sentencing judge as he's considering the section three hundred and fifty three a factors he needs to consider when it comes to conditions of supervised release and secondly they determined that this type  concern here from the outset of this case that the district court was concerned about was is is really colored by the factual circumstances and i think the district court even telegraphed as early as one of the endorses unlawful activity that is about as broad i would assume i don't know much about the proud boys but i was and would assume that would be the people who are standing less than six feet together before the  house in michigan which is a which is they do they do specifically because it's i'm awful and it's such a such broad language that it that i may perhaps perhaps the the  motivation for having the language there is narrow and makes sense but i'm not sure the language makes sense i think you know obviously this was actually confessed to it before the district court at one point in time the district court was even considering a total ban on any participation on any social you mean it could be worse you mean it could be worse i i i'm just i'm just stating that  this category of messages which promote or endorsed by lines in which represent to him the the danger zone but otherwise it's just violence the problem if you're rewriting it in a sense i'm not it's not a criticism but because it says endorses violence or unlawful activity that there are other places where we're similar language is used but the question is whether this was crafted narrowly really worked at trying to craft something that was narrow would be narrow but also cover and then maybe but did did it succeed i mean i'm the motive it the motivations here were were well i will try to avoid using that verbiage in essence here to the extent that there is any issue with the contours of this condition of supervised release mr bolling can always go back to the court and seek a modification and say listen i've been living with this condition now for he's actually been on supervised release for almost a year this is extremely problematic i cannot navigate these waters without like you know that the supreme court was very concerned about impacting him and this court expressed concern and equal and it's not a total prohibition it's not saying you cannot go on the internet you know because the risk is too high that you might engage in some sort of speech that's going to you know offend or hurt someone here it's very it's it's it's definitely the district court effort to tailor the to say when you're on the internet i don't want you to engage with a variety of hate speech or i don't want you to engage in posting or disseminating messages because here's the thing he admitted  during his interview mr bowen admitted during his interview with f b i that he actually did share that christ church video and that he posted a link to the manifesto so on the one hand you can see where you know  which would argue well those were newsworthy event you know there were news outlets that somewhat share the new but in the context of mr bolen with his associations with the hate groups that he was associated with plus in the context of other comments that he had shared it was dangerous and you know and then just on top of all this this is a man who when asked whether or not he possessed any weapons the night that even though he admitted to sharing you know the christchurch massacre video is there a difference between the fact that it's dangerous in the sense that it is money that it might get somewhere over the edge as opposed to that it actually plans or encourages someone to do something the sharing of the video might figure someone to go ahead and replicate it without necessarily saying do this as opposed to let's get together correct i think i think i think i you know i think the district court was just very troubled by the genesis of this the timing of all these communications and also quite frankly the immediacy with the medium like the internet there's nothing that if you read the special condition there is nothing that prevents necessarily mr bolen from sharing messages via snail mail it doesn't say anything about you know where mr ball into one of the last one  letter thank you your honor to write a letter and send and say hey let's get together it really is i think trying to slow down this type of activity when it occurs on the internet specifically messages which promote or and or spy went and as he defined violence you know spreading messages of hate your honor i guess the government government understands that these types of conditions are to be carefully scrutinized but in its arson the ssion that the district courts sentence should be affirmed the government and you understand areas i mean why should someone who's on supervised release be able to communicate messages of hate and violence but of well any surviving need may have a limited part and then it right he doesn't lose those right i'm wondering how different it is in terms of what one is allowed what the government may do in terms of someone who is incarcerated and their speech versus somebody who's on supervised reserve decision