similar even under the likelihood of success under the traditional what you're just saying which is about why we should distinguish absolute right but i ask a different question sorry let's say you lose on that does it matter to your issues i think that if i understand you correctly your honour's it an injunction even if you applied the traditional four part equity which i again adorning that we have to buy miller i think under miller irreparable understand the evidence you don't have pickets carrying signs instead you have stationery belonging avg but it is not merely a communication by the written banner of the hotel and artists and homes you have them twenty feet away from the driveway entrance that led to the construction site and for the sale office at the at harkins you have them twenty feet away from the drop of stone outside of the ninety seven you see what i'm thinking about here is some unions have rules that if you cross a picket line you're subject to union discipline and and it really matters whether anyone can see you doing it and a lot of walking past people who are arise standing like sentries and i'm trying to figure out which is which it is here and it looks like it's both not i mean it number one given this isn't the case on the merits again help but think that it's a little bit different that there's the old and traditional supreme court emphasis on preserving labor peace is that the heart of it and had traditionally labor law runs roughshod over a whole lot of free speech rights and that would prevail in other contexts like an employer can't say i will shut the place down if the union wins the election even though that is in fact true and it is a communication that would be very valuable to the employees to receive can put it in the newspaper and it's not just a matter of not being able to say it at the workplace and the only way i can rationalize the whole body of decisions is that there's wait signal even at the ethnic big brother you have me do not patronize message on afghanistan do not eat here number one people have to know people are automatically confronted with that they have to respond to that one and make up their mind very again your honor i that's not the case here and well it sort of is the case where the people are too far away to recognize somebody and it sort of is a case where the people are standing right at the door i mean that all of these it all of it only disability you still have a physical presence regardless of where they are and people have to crawl you're putting it kind of abstractly a physical presence but it's not a question of physics it's a question of whether somebody who would like to cross the line at feels like as it's not wise to cross the line because for the people who are standing there watching right again at every one of the facilities you have several of them two or more absolutely no but basically there is no evidence of any impact on any neutral employees whatsoever there's no evidence what and on the supposed to justice klein thoughts questions about whether  a supplier or repair person or customer or whatever doesn't know what kind of record people are keeping is being done the only way he can be sure that he can cross this picket line safely as if everybody or whatever you call it is if all the people who are standing there near the banners have red and white canes and seeing eye dogs well there's a pretty well established in your eyes or what's in what's sack course of there's a pretty signal picking but the problem with the argument is there's no support in the facts for these banners we're not posted at any location is where the employees of the neutrals would cross there's no  that it takes people to convey a message and for example take a situation in the bartolo itself when you park or they needed people to hand out the hand bills but here they don't need people they've got the communication erected on a banner well to present some of the factual situations in the cases that are urged as showing that confrontation is not required and in fact all of those cases involve classical rights in the sense of people are walking around the courtroom here and i can recognize faces beyond twenty feet one hundred feet it's really pushing it to recognize people some people can and i can't and i'd like to talk to that that particular stin again that goes to the signal picking doctrine that the labor board has advanced in many cases that doctrine is limited to employees of neutrals and i think we've cited a number of cases where if the banners are not posted are the banners who do you speak to address with the banners and they don't look at it in terms of the general public they look at if you put the banners at the entrances that are used by employees if you put them there when the only people are the most the people that are going to encounter and counter them are employees of the neutrals none of that is not an exist in this case it's clear that the banners the facts show evidence area standards dispute and notwithstanding your observations concerning labor law that somehow or other it seems that speech sometimes it doesn't have quite as great for the goose is good for the gander in this area is that the board's overall objective is to preserve labor peace because of the importance of that objective the traditional view required of the of the lower federal courts is deference toward the board and enforcement of the orders on a very liberal standard even if the court would reach a different result itself that doesn't apply in this argument but the difficulty with the general counsel's cases that they can really it's kind of a frightening notion that any time you publish your position on an issue of public issue then i don't know and someone might take their issues expect your point of view she i'm not going to patronize this particular employer because i don't like their contracting standards correct and and it's different court has said don't give the board any deference in this area and i think that is really the standard that has to prevent in the context of whether or not there's reasonable cause to believe that the act has been conduct unless it's absolutely clear in the legislative history that that's necessary i think that's all that the part all does and that you're over reading it by saying that it means no difference where first amendment is involved i think all it really does is say that you apply the catholic bishops rule and read the statute to avoid first amendment issues where possible well i think that the supreme court actually addressed the  because we're saying it's like picketing and it seems kind of circular to say though to further do differ based on whether it's like one of the other where first we have to decide whether it's like one of the other well i think that goes to what what distinguishes thinking from non thinking activity and i think you have to go on to need an element of physical pressure if i can use that term physical oppression that's the class i don't know about that some people don't want to cross a picket line because they're afraid somebody will hit them or they'll be violence but a lot of people don't want to cross a picket line because they fear they will be seen or they fear they will be subject to labor discipline or they believe in supporting the labor side of a labor dispute and they don't want to act in a way contrary to unions interest and in all for all those reasons it looks a lot like picnic you've got people there with the signs i'm close enough to see what you do what i would urge to your honor that it should not be judged correct the banner bears were stationary with hands i have two questions about that one is about the verbal content of the banner and the others about the people holding it being stationary on the verbal content i look at these banners and they have very few words shame on high a labor dispute and labor dispute shame on artisan homes inc labor dispute the  reasonable way to understand that communication would be that the union holding up the banners or the people holding up the banners have a labor dispute with artisan homes and the various other firms that are  involved that they have a dispute with a third party and not highest or artisan would not be reasonable inference from the batter's am i missing something there the only thing i would say you're missing your  definition around so what you're saying is they're not misleading they're true this is a labor dispute with a secondary that's correct and now my second question on the stationary part at the where remember it from sixty's when some of us used to sometimes demonstrate was you couldn't stand still you had to walk because if you stood still the police would say move along but if you were walking you could just say i'm just walking down the sidewalk everybody has a right to walk down the sidewalk and that they tell you that's right and leave you alone so i thought the reason the ficus walked was because as long as you're walking down the sidewalk no camping loitering ordinances that then used to be in effect would that not be a bar to the activity standing if anything seems more rather than less intimidating if the location is the same given the same location standing like sentries while the simile itself answers the question i guess why when standing the worse than walking rather than better than walking for purposes of deciding whether it's course of normally the issue of standing or walking arises when you actually have pickett's who are patrolling it crossed and engines i mean that's what i mean you s e that's where i think countered in the context of temporary restraining orders that people cannot walk across the entrance so as to block traffic which you know goes to the patrolling aspect of it that's for the greater or larger question that you asked and this is a protected activity under the national labor relations act isn't gauged in by labor organization for the benefit of the labor organization there is no inherent evil to which it's not like dynamiting someplace or something of that nature so it's a protected activity and because it's protected by the national labor relations act hopefully the local police cannot think you can think if there is a secondary boycott it's not protected putting that aside which is the issue and there's no other reason why it wouldn't be protected there's nothing inherently bad about it so so the kind of laws that you may be talking about that would clearly be a violation of your thinking if you had a picket sign out there and then you also had to handle it in the same thing's going to find a violation of that situation the fact that the did somewhat larger than a picket sign doesn't change anything  burden is much more allowing this to go on there and obviously to say that you're not saying and i'm wondering if there was that and you're not say maybe i maybe i didn't say that i thought i did say that they can spilling nation handling here in primary picketing whenever the primary at the primary locations they still have those avenues open so that any way you want to slow this is i was saying th