organizer to get out there so their message in this particular instance wasn't wow or even happened if there was a situation where are we born or the use of the war was interfering with the ability of the event organizer to get i believe the show is that the plaintiffs were using as part of their ability to get out their message to the usual one just like the eagles who are seeking to stop playing this from getting out their message were players got into the event they first set up with captain fisher's permission and area about twenty yards or so in front of the stage hoping that nate did so with the assistance of to city police assured that your clients could enjoy their first amendment rights by requiring the philly pride people the gay pride  or their security people to step aside analysis the issue is whether davis is conduct davis who was your fellow in your client's shoes in this case violated giles's first amendment i'm sorry language generically directed to the crowd this type of language when not personally directed at a particular member of the audience is not likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace down with dogs quote unquote or are you a bestie ality lover quote unquote were especially abusive and constituted fighting words where part of the speech  part of the speech constitutes fighting words the police make arrest for disorderly conduct even though other parts of the speech may be less provocative yes or no i looked at this did exactly the same thing he did the machine man he addressed the she man and after the she man responded there was a more you want you don't you won't be preaching like this gillies right on point do we have any authority to deviate from what this prior panel of this court said we're fighting words ok she man and once you got a response then you won't be preaching like this and help shape man amendment to the point where i believe the facts in the case and give mr gillies was inciting people to riot he was egging people on and it was a lot more that was going on there with mr dean or you had a discussion going on between mr t and somebody that was in the crowd mr bean as part of that lasted for about an hour or so and she seems to video it was a small sideshow in the big picture of what was going on there which is people engaging in free speech activities on the polic even if your honor believes that mr dieter's speech was not protected that her mom does not meet the constitutional protections given to everybody else in all the other speech that they had in the rights that they had to be able to about the alternative means of communication why isn't a silent carrying of signs and handing out leaflets and acceptable sign saying whatever you want you can't give out leaflets and we have a different situation here the it's not right i mean it is he suggesting that they were not given the right to carry signs and distribute leaflets was clear about he was adamant about was that he instructed the plaintiffs to go up thirteen street and mohit themselves or more yes barch he expected them to follow his instructions with our question they were not given any other alternatives what i'm suggesting to your monitor is the reasonable time place immediately requirement requires the police to go to the least restrictive means not this hearing to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish there if what the police were concerned about in fact was the crowd's reaction to this message there were other alternatives that they have that they could have employed for example they could have created a buffer zone because the crowd agreed with what they were saying the second would explain that would you agree with me just closing we've got to get on to this room others move would you agree with me that they analysis you have just gone through would not be applicable at all assuming your clients were using anybody using inappropriate words was mr dean or not the other ten people and the fact that even if you assume distributer said something inappropriate the fact that he did doesn't mean that the other speech of the other ten people automatically became one constitutional city philadelphia so i can't find fifteen blocks in that space but everybody seems to agree with the district court statement well that was actually my second point just like that i wanted to invite the court's attention to the usa of the record which is a map of the event and demonstrates perhaps it was fifteen to twenty square blocks entirely but in terms of being asked to move out of the event this was not a fifteen to twenty being asked to begin to move to thirty in the morning i was not being asked boy i mean isn't isn't that absolutely opposed to what we know about your free speech right to to i mean this is a public place just because they have a permit to they haven't right to that i was around twenty years ago when it was exactly the opposite when the people who were proposing kept took the position of the gay lesbian  sympathetic to otherwise you know so what they have to do they have the right to come in show some lines give out leaflets with their position their position is protected i was the first man and it was my client's position that it isn't for that reason we denied the request of the organizers to prevent them from coming in where you know but they are not permitted to disrupt activities that are demonstrators with opposing viewpoints which police are absolutely entitled to do in a public context when you're going to separate people with the posing viewpoints because they're heaving one another up there causing congestion or disrupting event you are allowed to send them to their you said we're using this as an excuse for lazy we're just not going to like to speak at all because we don't want to be bothered and this is like ok so it's a bit on this record it was entirely clear them our officers took it upon themselves to make it a problem for us we w submit that it doesn't make a difference we have essential and i disputed record here we have a situation where we took we did take narrowly tailored measures we left them in we let them do what they want when it became a problem we asked them to move to a less congested area and that's all  fighting words on one side one how can you justify surely you have if the police decide to create a buffer zone or something like that they have  obligation to try to assure the opportunity for both sides to speak about this apparently was not such a case lou said to you go off in the corner over there and you stay over type of conduct they're going to have that they need to do they need to do it in something a place that is less provocative and again i point to the district court's decision that we're talking about the context of a problem and not the content of the speech and that's what this is continue to engage in your speech but you have to be in this area where you are again you're still within sight and sound you're still able to evangelize you're still able to do all the things that you were doing within the area of the permission to go over there where we're go everybody else over here yes but again i think the important distinction is that first of all they were allowed to engage we broke the blockade we let them into the center of the event in the first place and that again we didn't tell them you have to stop now we told them you have to move over here solve the problem of the hundreds of people converging causing traffic flow issues causing safety issues and so that if you tell us that we can't engage in that sort of activity and again still willing to engage in the speech that our action is number of different levels in which it has i think everything to do with her early first really held it was a fundamental rule protection under the first amendment that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the nature of his message and that when you impact that message whether it's in a street festival i think or or or a street parade we were still starting to impact and interfere with the autonomy of the speakers message and that is exactly what we assert their courage here  concept that clearly somehow doesn't apply beyond the context of a street parade which for example has been sort of expressed in the ninth circuit case in gatorade which came down i think during the course of of the briefing in this case we submit to is just not not the case we think something much closer to the analysis for example it was conducted in the third circuit in the dinner case which is some published is much closer to the mark and that is that i do have to tell you that what the plaintiffs here were saying was part of their message well i think really think so i think the concept of a contrary is complex compared to for example competing or one wanted speech i think is really ultimately  on the first amendment rights in this case of the permit holder and we think the concept the there is a permit holder this case is absolutely critical to the analysis it's critical to the analysis  yes or a no and the reason is for example if you bring your way and then there's a main stage as there was here at thirteenth the mochas huge signs that would block the visibility of participants there that represent competing on wanted speech by the event think about the next case too so that they stop them the answer is it depends upon the specific facts because it depends on an analysis of the interference and that we think is the fundamental hard or what hurley talks of down of what sister on the other cases in this people against the viet of the vietnam war now people against the iraq war came in and carry big signs and put out leaflets to what extent does the city of philadelphia have an obligation to let them that intrudes on first two men and an expression by the permit holder of the message of that event ok so then that's different it seems to me that talking in terms of competing speech talking in terms of disruption or interruption it's a different kind of issue then complaining and you keep talking about competing speech and that worries me more of the reason i talk about community speech well your honor just to make this point very clear is it is all necessarily about the interference with the first amendment message of the of the permit holder and i made that point but i used the word competing because for example you could imagine   yet it would be speech it would also be perhaps someone did although we have to determine that from the standpoint of the event holder it is only when the speech is publicly expressed in a way by volume by location or maybe all of of factors that may apply that may play in which you find the speech competing with the message interfering by a competition yeah i'm pointing out is to me at least i whether the formulation is complete it is competing or not is the the fundamental concept is is is that conflict of first amendment speech in which the issue is the rights of the permit holder on poetry to the sidewalk because the crowd is getting upset by your speech disagree with the formulation subsequently made which is that the police have the right about interference yes the police could take steps to ensure that it wasn't interference for example when at the beginning of the video you saw that it when the speaker got up on the stage  was getting ready to get up on the stage captain fisher into the plaintiffs and said you guys go because you're getting ready to speak on the stage and it's going to interfere with them being over here now he had some drama by turning with the rest when he made the request and i'd suggest to your honor that that was one of the things i was going to suggest as a reason all turn to that could've been any of us if we had a situation where the noise level was causing the disruption to please certainly could've gone to the plaintiffs and said no boards as protect provocative speak to be doesn't protect the right apply it is to go out on the public sheets and so i'm off and say things that get people upset when it doesn't mean anything we don't need a first amendment that protects speech and everybody agrees with