state countless people unknowingly violate the false person nation of a parent or guardian statute which is a strict liability statute it's now required criminal and the statutes violated even though no child in danger in many of these situations and in fact the child does not even need to be present for the statute to be violated and then over brett's challenge like this woman test to do with the first amendment the right to free speech the statutes now presume constitutional and the state has the burden of showing that the statute is narrowly tailored to the government's purpose and here that it does not restrict innocent speech this  innocent speech needs to be protected just the illinois supreme court recently reiterated and people be magical that i mean innocent conduct i'm sorry that was not a free speech case but they did address the and any facts that you in that case and found it was unconstitutional because it a portion of it was unconstitutional because it included a large amount of innocent conduct likewise here this statute  potential of punishing a great deal of innocent conduct it only requires that a person make a false representation that they're related to the child to a child to a set group of people again it doesn't require that the that that the purpose of the statute likely is to protect children however i don't think it's narrowly tailored to that purpose had they had the statute been drawn differently if it had been drawn in such a way that they include a few more wor for a criminal purpose as luring statute for example it's not just enticing a child with speech it's for criminal purposes for the statute to add it for a criminal purpose it would then be constitutional the consent of parents in the example of someone who you know sort of casually calls calls a child they're nice when they're not related so as long as the parents are ok that would be ok and that would that would be fine but for the vast majority of these things we would terms of eating children are preventing harm to children all include something like that you know for a criminal purpose or you know the act in itself has some harm to a child things  like child pornography things like that here are the examples of many examples i put in my brief but i can think of other examples where the child wouldn't not be harmed in any way just by saying hey just choose someone this is my niece or this is my cousin an example for example of now the talmud even needing to be there let's say i post a photo of a child's of a best friend of mine i consider myself to be h i post this on my facebook page as a crowd and she just well i have friends that are coworkers like myself are public employees so when they see that post that that makes the sat me i have violated that statu innocently lovingly calling this child my niece and have situations like this that we really want to prevent we don't you know granted there are situations where someone with a criminal purpose would try and claim to be a relative of the  just one or two examples that you could come up with it's many examples that i think are easily to come up with situations where people would say that they're related to someone that they're not related to and so that's the standard whether it's a substantial number i mean this is in contrast to to society some sort of intend to do some kind of harm here there's just so many innocent ways that you could claim to be you know a productive of a child so if the allow this how some the did in the application there was lying is in itself a crime that's why the statute it's overly broad you say something that's untruthful so even to a police officer you have still have to have an intense you hide out cover something up work you know prevent someone from being arrested would you not think in this case today that he was trying to cover something up the fact that this young girl was a runaway and the young girl was with him and my by deceiving the police officer he was trying to do that there when all this is said to him i believe well let's even a higher standard than there in the court addressed specific innocent conduct that their concern would apply in that statute things like examples that i have given that the state suggested words would never be they would never be arrested for examples like someone looking up their friends marathon time on the internet technically violated the law someone doing a google search on someone technically filed by way of the law and these are examples just like i stated truly innocent conduct that violates this law with no criminal purpose and no criminal intent whatsoever inspects just everyday things that people do and when my supreme court found that it's to punish too much absolutely no mention that says that statute should not be presumed constitutional moret opposing counsel does not include a pen a pin sight for that so  relative in order to gain access and possession of that child the statute grants law enforcement personnel the opportunity to step in be firm for the harm maybe inflicted on the child and with children to reach include situations where a  person has tried to kidnap a child from school by pretending to be their relative child abductor has been stopped by police these are persons who are soliciting underage prostitutes their internet predators who are learning in unsuspecting minors tending to see if they were mislead being deceptive and it's clear here that the legislator used the term fastly to mean that the speaker is making his representation of relationship with the intent to deceive writers also further limitations that make the sat should narrowly tailored to serve very compelling state interest of protecting society's minors and that is that it also limits what the representation must be over a minor child so does not involve a situation where there's two adults public employee a public official or school employee or administrator in other words positions where those persons are in positions of trust and would be capable of helping children their own people be lewis th has stated that the public policy mandates that the law be able to step in where danger becomes manifest that a criminal act is eminent and there's none more important than situations or involving children you than the instant case that statute said that a person commits fost person nation of a peace officer when he knowingly and falsely represents himself to be a peace officer there's no limits on who you are speaking to or any more than that the statute has absolutely no limits it doesn't criminalize me it criminalizes any statement made by any individual to any person and what's the individual represents himself to be a police officer have a statue we have before us today is very nar interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological wellbeing of a minor is both legitimate and compelling there's wrong established precedent that shows the united states supreme court and illinois courts have stained legislation  at protecting the physical and emotional well being of use even when those situations have had first amendment implications the most recent has illinois have been people v williams and people b smith in which case there were  everybody challenges to certain saturates involving children one being indecent solicitation of a child and another being a child abduction act and the state and the courts have said in both instances that the state's substantial interest in protecting children has a lot at the broad powers to avert such potentially dangerous situations and that it surpasses any potentially unlawful applications be honest even if there is an instance where there's an innocent application of this statute again the over prompts test is that it must substantially outweigh the constitutional applications matters not occur in this case and it's to serve the compelling state interest of protecting minors rostam protect its according to find some text speech may be constructed by the statute the scope of that in permissible restrictions far less than the legitimate it's not the so question that wanting to protect children from harm is a serious issue and that i mean no one's going to say that we don't want to protect children from harm the issue here is that this statute doesn't go far enough in that goal it does not is not nearly constricted enough to that just because there are examples of state points out of situations in which this statute would punish criminal conduct that doesn't that doesn't change the fact that the it also would put a potentially punish lots of innocent conduct she have a one hundred if anything about a hundred innocent ways in which i could say something that not true that's not criminal and should not be criminal and yet the statute would punish those instances also it's a i one of i won't get into completely because i but to keep to the state sites regarding other instances of child safety harm to children all those things require specific criminal activity criminal purpose or the law and themselves was prohibiting something criminal in nature such as child pornography and things like that regarding the whether or not and as she suggested having someone be arrested and go to court on a crime and then have to try and weasel out of it by saying that as you know the statute doesn't mean that explicitly in this case when the statute doesn't say anything about needing a criminal purpose at all and it's quite different in the boat both of those cases the situation where there would be a very narrow amount of things that could be innocent conduct we're talking about distribution of material depicting sex performed by a child and ind that one of specific sex crimes occur i mean that's very different to find potentially innocent conduct in situations like that versus in this case so if there are no other questions we would just ask this court fin