the a federal aviation regulations which impacts first amendment rights that is subject to first amendment scrutiny the test will vary depending upon the nature of the form the first question i think that has to be answered of course is whether or not the filing out of time so the statutory sixty day deadline for filing with respect to administrative regulations to that prior question is w well it's not moot because in our petition your honor and i believe it's a paragraph pointing one that indicated that we mr skolnik and his company wish to fly not only on the october third through fifth of two thousand and three events at disneyland but also there after another was once you became aware of the nature of the events that went on annually disneyland he thought he would like to want to manual  know that's not necessarily true your honor he wanted the ability to conduct his business there was one other occasion a number of years prior to this where he had been secured by disney subsidiary to do some filming apparently over that was two years ago right but it was there after once he became aware of that advanced the petition does identify thereafter he was looking for one date on this particular occasion but that they're asked to clearly identifies the events that would come from books for decades sometimes and there will be an individual who's lived in that town for the longest time and suddenly occurs to him i want to go exercise my first memory rights in the park let's say that they have a permit scheme which is a prior restraint and we see this all the time places in this particular case i think the world does recognize by definition that there will be occasions where there will be people who will have an interest in initially but do so do so or would likely have an interest later advertising  censor the first amendment and i do think there has to be a fair amount of room for people to  understanding i'm coming back to it your honor we would not have had article three standing i believe that congress in passing these regulations in the statute wants to protect constitutional rights the flipside of what the court is saying is that somebody can be  people for instance bana floors can be for ever foreclosed from challenging an unconstitutional regulation of the sixty day window passes and they didn't have a substantial interest it's just too bad i don't think that yes it is your own fact the  court charles farmer of department of justice for the federal aviation administration i'm not sure i'm going to be able to do any more with the time when this issue of the record is already gone you flushed out the problems with the panel using this used in this area i think the one thing i would like to address our car when we put in our car terminology because they are the issue was a public health regulation that's had an impact on the book seller in the first amendment rights of the book seller and it's been what was very clear that when you have a facially neutral statute that doesn't talk about sure it's a it's a reasonable time place from now on are restrictions justified by compelling government interest in preventing or at least reducing the risk of aerial terrorist activities and three thousand feet and three miles is a  in place in doesn't only and you cannot grant waivers from this is not some way we're the agency saying we think this might be a good idea to impose these  judging how much how far off that really is something quintessentially for the political branches of the i think expertise in this area to judge and it's difficult for the court of course ill equipped to sort of come in and second guessed well three thousand feet really maybe doesn't give you an impact on the first minute but it's you know it doesn't fall into the first amendment analysis any more than stopping as just as a connor said in our car or stopping a newscaster for speeding would have an impact on first and you can't just transfer everything in the first amendment analysis and get all the high standards when you're dealing with these sorts of standards that don't talk about speech but as i was trying to go through before i think we also weighed in on the ryan analysis and there was of course at the time this question of the contains a principle of speech and you have guilty for people to exercise free speech in public fora the sky above us clearly has been used for instance much more for communicative communicative purposes than say for instance navy which it was conceded there by the government west public fora and so the air while the barriers to entry may be somewhat more limiting in terms of the numbers of people who can get up into the sky it clearly has much more of a history with respect to communicative activity then does the water this corning bury a piece maybe expect it as a public forum and so the mere fact that it hasn't been time out of mind utilized is public fora i do not think precludes it from operating as public for indeed the government the f a a is permitted skywriting is permitted banner towing so it's recognised that communicative activity does occur there and so the question  as what was the nature of that for i'm not prepared to say it is traditional because it certainly doesn't fit into the the time out of mind description however it does fit into the category that says community to the activity does occur there we barry peace maybe in other cases have said the government to come forward and show you can't just have this tells me incantation of national security or the president's well being you have to affirmatively come forward and show us that you are not suppressing any more speech and