of the various causes of action pleaded is whether the first amendment swallows up all of these other legal theories under the particular facts as pleaded and shown in the record these other legal theories include the lanham act vision of privacy false light intentional infliction of emotional distress an absolute right to disseminate information about an individual derived from public records even a criminal conviction that is decades old the play disposition is that the first amendment is not applicable in this case even though it might protect publishers and broadcasters and other contexts  address five of the privacy case was decided by the supreme court of california and the supreme court of the united states perhaps you could include it in that i have a i would like to  right to avoid dissemination of a long ago criminal conviction as a matter of state privacy law and of course in california the right through privacy is invited in the state ultimately proved correct didn't at least in part in two thousand and four after the briefing in this case the california supreme court overruled briscoe in gates versus freedom of the press not freedom of speech or things of that type and then they also stated in a footnote bristol versus reader's digest is over ruled to the extent that the common law falls like cause of action the lanham act for false advertising and all the other legal theories on which the plaintiff lives here now you have the website and on the website it seems to me that we have to look at it in terms of the supreme court cases is it more like a cases that talk about or or is it more like the face to face targeted solicitation and because what hat you know what protection that would be attached would seem to turn on how you characterize that satellite is just not like a newspaper or a television it is it is more like a commercial speech of an individual and and privacy law survives under circumstances of this type can be found in or can be shown in the case of time versus hill where a new york jury made in the ward based on  common law violation of privacy under new york law and new york statute and the supreme court held that it was subject to the new york times limitation based on actual constitutional malice but if the position taken by the defendants here were correct it would have completely abolished the whole sort of privacy under new york law which it did not do because the new york times rule this limit official court records well let's just go right to that why since lunch is not a media defendant and in fact he uses the website to solicit business why should he enjoy the same protection as the as the media and architects because the philosophy or reasons why the protection exists has to do with the with the nature of what was published and in this case the absolute truthfulness of the nature of what was published here  dylan's published two different things the first is a reproduction of the public record and any viewer who goes to the website disclosed to me to find out where the information is being sent out in this instance if you are must come to th he gives the record itself of you are all oh here's the clip if you want to get some public record itself if you must know to click on something you can then click again and find the actual public record so the basis of the truthfulness a neutral recitation of in fact you can tell it was really just opinions joe was maybe of the opinion that he was a matter of public record and if you're considering whether or not to do business with reddy like you should consider this and what is disclose information itself is the fact that it's an old conviction there's nothing on the website that says he's still doing it it's just not there well i think a felony convictions never a good sign i mean i lot of people get it their whole life and never have one so i think most people if given their druthers wed i think it it does have that attacked i agree with what the course says and if you know if i had a what is published is truthful and from an official public record then the holding of case should apply as my counsel suggests i know that because haitians like that's not that's not what t the supreme court because i think that the reasoning from decision itself although it serves me defendants because the court is limited to what you think i know or your position is clear that applies to gage should apply in the of the publication and the fact that it is truthful statement of the official public record can you cite any cases that hold that there is no material distinction between and here defendant and a commercial speech so forth and this case sort of revealed the california law privacy it was also a media case it did not directly address the question of differences between media descendants and other defendants and my clients would have no objection to this court certifying the issue to the california supreme court under the rules of the california supreme court o both of them by arguing contrary to the reasoning of briscoe and solomon that a past criminal conviction does not shine light on the present character of the person and the state has an