said that they had the right to control the message that they chose to convey at the event i don't believe the supreme court talked about how people watching the parade would have perceived and and if you come by and the thing i need to say about  the reason that i think it leaves any question open at all is this the group that wanted to participate in the parade was disturbing right under state law not its own first amendment rights so what we have in this case is that there's a question of the dueling first amendment rights of the permit holders and then mr gas right there it hasn't been entirely squarely addressed  permit event has the right to control the message including what to say and what not to say it it is our position that the distinction between a parade and a public event and the distinguished in the distinction the court here tr was deluded by the requirement that they allow mr gast right to participate in their event by haranguing their customers with the message that was contrary to what they outside of the unreasonable interference ordinance which i will touch on time permitting briefly and i think i meant to mention i'm going to try to reserve a few minutes for a bottle but i realized the answer your question about for that our traditional first amendment analysis even with speech in a public form we have the right the government has the right to impose reasonable time manner and place limitations on the exercise of free speech and we don't have to make it criminal in order to do it in fact we should do it in this little intrusive a way as we can so it has to be on a case by case basis that if you have conduct that is actually disrupting an event whether or not it violates some free standing of law there has to government then it's not state action and there's no nine hundred eighty three claims so they have to have some claim that the government has has done something before there's any first amendment violation at all and for the before the two thousand and four injunction and after the two thousand and four instruction before the two thousand and four injunction we took the position which we continue to assert here that the permit holder has the right to determine the content of the message it at its  t and that was enough for it to say we don't want this message are bound to we were duty bound to honor those decisions and in fact that's the if we're right about that that's the narrow way for us to deal with that because then we're not making the judgment about what years and acceptable message and what's not we're only going to enforce that which the person who has the right to make that determination has determined to be unacceptable and has determined they want to do something about  if we if we are right as those of it we are on on the right of the permit to control the message then what we were doing was entirely appropriate if we're wrong about that and that's what brings us to the post two thousand and four era then the question is local what limitations can we help impose in order to avoid undue disruption of these events in the parks and and in preventing us from dealing on the ground with destructive conduct that doesn't in fact rise to the level of a freestanding crime the judge went too far me the way to happens on the ground is that the police in consultation with the complainants the people who are putting on the event try to work out a reasonable accommodation for both parties what happened at the bite event is the last treated at the bite of that mystery gas wright was standing in the middle of the crowd screaming and hollering and the  cited as the bike you found and it is it is our position that when space with these on the ground situations we expect the police to be able to help to make these reasonable determinations of how to accommodate these  and we have  i believe that it is the law as expressed by the supreme court that under those circumstances we might be required to have the counter speakers speak from jason areas outside the actual permit deals with people who want to stand in the streets jason to the perp to the permit area they're not in the permit area itself and if you have what these guys want to do is stand on the public streets adjacent to the permit areas but that's not what he does so that's and then and we've been and we've been prohibiting from dealing with what he does do i just i think i have like about four minutes left and should probably an open situation which public is invited there are a variety of restaurants which serves food there and during part of the time there is music and during part of the time it's just people milling around enjoying food and drink and what the evidence was developed in the district court it's a time of the modification of the injunction that was videotaped evidence that shows first of all that mr gast right was not screaming and yelling he was standing in the middle of an open area and in fact the the district judge expressly referenced the videotape standing out there talking to people that most of the people walked by he's not obstructing anyone and he's just saying what he has to say and then what occurs is police officers come up to him and say we'd like to move you over here and he says you know i don't need to move over there because there's already an injunction  i can be here and they persist in that and pretty soon there's a multitude of police officers a multitude of security officials and then a crowd gathers and the fundamental problem and the reason why we deem t in a violation of the injunction and i believe it's a violation of the law as well as it has the injunction is that it was entirely up to the discretion of the permit holder the event organizer to decide they didn't want him with me on that basis where i have all the protections of the criminal process yes i am exceeding the noise ordinance fine cite me for that and let's let's go through the process what mr gas right objects to and what this case is really about is permit holder saying you know what one of these guys who's a friend of mr gast rights wants to come into our advanced with trust jesus on the stand and we can't have that and when there are challenges on the basis for deciding that they have no rules written down certainly no rules posted and they're making an ad hoc determination at that point in time that that it's actually interfering with the program and a speaker that is a speaker or performing musical group disorderly conduct would permit the removal of mr gas right under those other person from viewing hearing or meaningfully participating in the right but instead what the city has alike to do throughout the course of this case and even before this case for that matter is to say let's not permit s do whatever they want well back a mob and only now in two thousand and five six years after their noninterference ordinance is declared unconstitutional do they come up with a description or an answer perhaps they what should have been in place instead of the city inserting in its permitted perhaps language to the effect that permit holders i get to decide whatever rules state watch and anybody who disagrees with them is some reasonably interfering with the us that that's what the record shows happened up to this point i don't believe that the entire case because i think it's important since this has been a subject of  continuing interest throughout the country over the last couple of years i don't believe that it's helpful to the parties or to the public as a whole to not to to make a definite decision concerning the determination of of how rights are to be handled in this kind of situation because the court needs to remember all of the events that are at issue are events at which the public is  about again they've the fundamental problem that mr gast or i spend complaining throughout this case is the whole unfettered discretion issue and the important thing here is to determine whether or not  why is that significant for purposes of this appeal first of all that kind of conduct continued on after the issuance of not only the preliminary injunction but also the permanent injunction secondly the record makes clear that even while the preliminary injunction was in place and during the at about the same time that the permanent injunction was put in place the city actually amended its permit form to include a provision which i've also already referred to that says in relevant part persons who refuse to follow committee's rules of conduct will be deemed to have i'm reasonably interfered with permits these activities and i'm back occurred after the city had made a representation to the court that it wasn't going to use the unreasonable interference ordinance which is the precursor to the the p c c twenty point zero eight point zero six so the problem is that we that we have is that anybody who's a member of the public from coming to a public event and the the fundamental fallacy that in the city's position and the reason they keep going back to early is that in effect when the city issues a permit what occurs at that point in time is a public forum becomes the private province of the permit holders in other words even though the city says  we're not transforming the forearm it's just that other people temporarily lose their first amendment rights that can't be the law because the first amendment does not require that there be an exclusion of other viewpoints again a public place at all times unless there's a private for a private permit and judge bale made reference to the mahoney case and i think that absolutely articulate the analysis that needs to be followed here if you've got a public place even though you've got an organized event and some sort of a message that doesn't mean that you can close off the streets on the sidewalks and everything around holding the people  on this point up to now has now basically limited those prior cases in the parks versus city of columbus face and again i thank the the sixth circuit is absolutely right and they agree with the  hosting an event that remains free and open to the public and then i think the decision goes on to reject the whole idea that their view is think they can allow unfettered discretion and the problem that mr gas quote narrowly drawn reasonable and definite and that is what has been lacking up to this point in time sit down and thank you event held under permit with regard to the current suggestion of mediation i'm certainly willing to discuss that with my clients and with mr gray the problem that we have is that we are caught between two forces neither of which is of our own making which is th premis things happen in the parks all the time that don't necessarily implicate any freestanding provision of law but that requires some kind of interdiction by the park's authorities there's all kinds of unsaved or unprovoked or stupid things that people can do in parks that the answer to which is to have somebody come up and say hey you can't do that right here right now you have to do something else rather than to say i'm going to write a law that makes it specifically inappropriate to do this each and every silly thing in a park we believe we can do and that there is data there has been no loss cited that prohibits a government from allowing someone who uses its property for a public event to establish rules of conduct specific to that event there's no law that says that that's unconstitutional again the problem with with the injunction in that it is an outright prohibition against our doing that is that it's not limited to these things that as they implicate free speech we can't allow our permit holders to establish any rules of conduct relevant to their event and that's simply an abus discretion yesin in writing the ordinance we have try to deal with some of the most predictable things that we think are going to be repetitive problems that have answers and deal with them in a free standing ordinance but we can't air anticipate what may be a particular concern to a particular event and if it's not speech related it has no right to being foreclosed by it's improper to have a foreclosed by an injunction if it is speech related we have to individually address them to determine whether they're reasonable time place and manner restrictions on the exercise of speech