that you can reasonably narrow had to enter interrupt you here for opening remarks but i'm having a hard time hearing you as a my i don't know what's going on with your can you hear me better now ye start with the interpretive question and that obviously bears severance st and probably most fundamentally the th circuit erred when it drew the line to protect and it's a mere or abstract advocacy doings that allowed it to distinguish between promotion encouraging and urging on the one hand that were protected because they had no plain meaning consistent with concrete action and words like organize and incitement that it found were not protected because it involved on there organized which doesn't have a connotation of imminence or like the thing frank we can think about organizing a college reunion for next summer we might organize voters who may or may not show up at the at the polls indeed even the government plain meaning definition of organized which is make preparations or implies neither in its nor likely but in fact this problem pervades the entire statute for example the word insight itself may have some kid for a defendant case to face book and says we're going to go on a particular model the speeches of course but the facebook posts are laden with a lot of speech about how the police are not sufficiently don't care about black people things like th and but of course by the time it gets to them all the mall is covered with fleas there's no actual riot that's about to occur another charge from recently in the northern district of ohio raises similar concerns  own town doesn't care about black people and so five days from now right five days out from these tweets we're going to take to the streets to quote endure on destruction there's several other comments about perhaps we're going to right so these charges establish that there is no no imminence for choir and even the word and even a word like inciting or organizing even a three isn't entirely amusing from this problem right a three is that count what's charged is the use of a credit card the other one is is this common this text message between two members of ram one says two weeks from now right there talking two weeks out from the earthly right we've got text or the legislative history would permit the court to infer that an attempt statute was intended here right we have a statue the for have it's too x each one must have its own purpose there's no in the text does not require a connection would come into town and leave long before the right occurring wouldn't seem to capture would not seem to be a substantial stuff it would be an attempt and for that reason because this problem infects the entire statute we believe the district court was right when it said that the entire statute must be struck down because there is the entire statute is overbroad now we do think that this was made two additional errors and i want to address them briefly but i do want to save some time for severance so the nd one is the fact that the definition of private is so broad that one can purchase the baby in or carry on or maybe even organize a riot even if one intends only conduct a peaceable counter protests and that's because any here in l a certainly in the wake of the george floyd protests there were several occasions where we saw individuals looting and right next that we saw individuals were standing outside of stores urging people to use nonviolent means of expressing their their anger at the police it's hard to say that that person who is standing in front of a store watching this kind of looting go on has not participated in a public  that involved the element and yet we would believe that that kind of speech is really within the heart of a st amendment for time and again this is an area where if this is true it infects the entire statute there's no need to now i recognize that there are a number of courts that have upheld right statutes those statutes generally require as most state statutes do certainly the ones that i review in the th circuit for criterion measuring events on the ground to determine whether your conduct  lightly in that moment to incite or contribute to riot particularly significant in this day much as was the case in sixty eight when the father passed there's a nice edge between a protest and a riot and yet the act criminalized it's committed before the riot ever occurred and i think this is important not only for those they've misplayed but also for the overt act when i would point out that count two charge in this case they the actual anti riot act the only seems overt act is driving to berkeley so the in the government's then the charging document the crime is committed when the defendant gets in their van and drive to berkeley that's the only named overt act of counts you count one is the one that has dozens of overt acts of her count two the only named over frightening for me now the problem here is that it's hard to predict in advance whether the theme that you are promoting or organizing or going to participate in is going to be a riot as i was preparing for this argument as it was the lead up to the one million magen march write the one million magen march organized by transcom orders and yet there was a tweet that was very clear that there were going to be other groups that were intending to join so how is the group that wants to promote that x post to know whether what they're promoting or organizing is pointing to the riot are they bound by what's happened at past trump rallies and that those turned violent  even person he's pulling an individual off the street before the intended speech act supposed to address whether that conduct is likely to involve a riot as manager of these are very good hypotheticals i want to go back to an of want to riot and maybe they don't want the person to take the t v out of the target but doesn't the government have to prove that they wanted some sort of unlawful conduct or at least couldn't the statute be construed in that way i think certain words have that  think three could be read with that either that's the one that's committing an act in furtherance of a riot i think that definitely has that when you contrast that though with with participation rate i think at that point you only have says it can be read as an overt act because of now i think that the text of a is entirely clear the text of a says use an overt act for any purpose specif e notably i think by my count the word overt act is used nine times in the united states criminal code or military justice phone seven of those are specifically with respect you can you're right it's and and that's why i think even if it was is wrong in saying that this isn't a test but i certainly think it can be defined as actual completion of the act of the and in this arts and point out that this was and this was modeled on the travel act the travel act is that kind of s text about making your arrangements to get twenty five people your arrangements they made about let's meet up at eight hundred and thirty what it sounds like right i'm going to ask everyone to kick in twenty five and then the over acting driving to work so i don't think even the way the government charge clauses and parts of free i think that's a misreading of a supreme court case by fear i would point the court to american airlines which i think makes the most explicit in that case involved a legislative veto and cut and the supreme court says well that's our home as its usual and of course we can take out a legislative veto and the things will work but that's not the analysis the a a legislative veto is something that has a bearing on the separation of powers and so we can't just say that because does that apply to that original document a definition that's far different than what congress intended it's far different than the speech that congress was intending to capture congress wrote the statute so that it w the advocacy of acts of violence that it would specifically include as a gloss on each of those provisions speech that went all the way down to urging rethink that if you simply do it the force for good and and redlined out the double that sought by the measure viewed as a whole congress here was intending at speech that when to happen far before a riot and it seems pretty clear that it was intending to capture exactly what it said w and that is the problem that even if you can get the on the problem of a reading out severing a statute so that it means the opposite of what congress wrote you still have the problem of what congress had then acted that statute we think that's that it would reduce the incentive of congress to write constitutional statutes and we simply say well we'll assume that congress meant to do up to the constitutional line and will rewrite the statute for four of them the other problem here is that it doesn't appear that congress actually meant to go up to the constitutional law congress was very clear and that this is very clear a lot of play to history but it's also clear and and tw is the provision that says nothing is interfering on state and local law enforcement private it's a candle riot come right it intentionally drew the line further from the right conduct that was the conduct it meant to have after and we think that's these are reasonable