this is this all relates to your st amendment argument i take yes or you're not making a compelled speech argument well you're on to the speech yet your brief does brief and i didn't find one directory or the preliminary injunction you're free to make that argument you know if it was in the proceedings on the merits we go back but my question is just a factual one  i searched through your briefs for any place where you said one of the problems with the statute is that it's compelling us to speak in places where we don't want to and i can't find it so my question is am i mistaken yes you can't find anything in your argument that suggests the district court was wrong because it was because you were compelled to speak now i'll go back to brief again i don't think it is spend time parsing it while we ta the your preemption argument and i want to make sure i understand the statute correctly the arizona statute doesn't deal with the regulation of her mutual gaming at all does it racing industry and we know that because of the government's response to that argument the government's response to that argument is if you don't like it then don't do business in arizona that the governor or the attorney general to simply say we don't want to have interstate gaming in arizona the state could make the decision that it did not want to allow interstate ending in arizona of principle is that once state makes the decision to allow the activity to occur of her in the borders of the state and regulate that activity it's no answer to a conflict preemption  downs application and only approved it to have paradise one at least consistent with a federal act well the state the state has approved simulcasts agreements with arizona downs i understand that's not the question i asked the question i asked is could the state approve parimutuel gaming laurel parker pair mitchell gave me but only had her of paradise not arizona downs requires is compliance with state law where to wager is is so arizona law or wager in arizona and also so it's a section one thousand and or consent by the arizona commission  racing commission is that some front of us at the moment but as a matter of state law if the commission approved param usual wagering at the o t v's of arizona downs for example  understand there's no tie in under arizona law between simulcast inc and interstate parimutuel gaming is there i think they certainly go together but legally i don't think they're going to i mean as a matter of as a matter of consumer preference it is a matter of what the providers want to do it ends to the attraction but there's nothing under state law that requires is there then to be a simulcast in order to conduct their mutual gaming  on because that's their product that they're not as far as i know they're not involved with facilitating interstate wagering without his i will chaos it's a package for them something that they provide that includes off what he wanted to talk about so let me make the argument i think he would have made had we allowed him to more time he can correct me when he gets back but i think let's assume that he's making his argument put aside whether it's in the briefs or not you're saying to me that if i want to speak in arizona and i only want to speak in terms of paradise and it's zero g d's in arizona downs is live location i must also speak at arizona transmitting any signal into the state of arizona and the commission actually directed that activity not just minor also to the technological content providers prohibiting mon from distributing any signal into arizona and your honor save is out and about is that it has applied challenge or a facial challenge i don't see the face of the statute prohibiting that you surely are free to go back to the district court and say that the commission overstepped its bounds it doesn't have that authority under the statute but i don't see where that comes in the face of your own course it happened after briefing and