identified the factors you simply disagreed with would the court weighed the factors and it seems to me that at the end of the day all you're saying is you weigh them differently than the district no no i think th but he did have some fish mr john the piece let me let me point in that regard specifically to direct examination let me point you to major infractions paragraph part of this is the misbehavior all of my questions about his answers that he did not suffer deprivation is because of the lack of a better term his testimony was chilled in the wake of what  though he said there are an inherent contradiction isn't it difficult to be chilled by something when you don't know you were children until later on and perhaps even have had an opportunity to talk to  please the court my name is mary thomas griffith and i am here today on behalf of the actually the university of the virgin islands and individual defendants rockstar and georgia it's not like to be honest i'd like to begin my presentation with respect to the standing issue that my opposing counsel just addressed before the court essentially what i understand is that the overground argument that appellant comes to this court he will particularly in our right so you're no are you departing from your response to judge cured him that he had to be charged and that instead it's some kind of impact on him it consider those provisions until after charges were brought and i have consulted with a lawyer i have not i have not my speech has not been affected by any of those provisions i think in light of that come late testimony matter of the judicial provance in allowing him to bring forward the overbright claim still is obligated as a point of fact on constitutional standing grounds to make up their own independent standing requirements the district court did not properly determine whether or not he has the right to to saying these things with respect to our sections are eight c and b we believe that the district richard and i have suggested in the wake of those who were fraser and especially more recently john that those cases don't seem applicable but let's look at the language of some of the specific sections let's look at all that's that's the procedures for getting authorization can you point to them are they in the record is our obligation to look for reasonable limiting construction yes but that isn't that i was going to get to that next that is an obligation that the court has but how do we find that when there's nothing with respect and  which i suggest may have some problems with it water and this is in the context of worthy events misbehavior that's wording events are many times it's wording events by their nature offensive to the opposing team i'm from pennsylvania from western pennsylvania and i can imagine the university of pittsburgh football game a sign that says if you can read this you are not a west virginia mountaineer isn't it possible that somebody from west virginia would find that offensive  possible that you can identify provisions applications of this rule that may or may have a problem that is not a problem that is before this court for redress by this particular cl eighty three basis and that's what he did he said look here it is on its face it's overbroad that's what a facial challenge you it's says you'll need to do anything except read this thing and you can see it reaches constitutionally protected free response to the facial challenge the state of the law with respect to the facial challenge is it the regulation can be read to the same constitutional muster it must be given that interpretation and then to did john which we have invoked with both you and mr jones that yes john involved a regulation a provision used the word offensive that a word that is hopelessly the is it not and isn't that game set and match as one of our colleagues would say at least as to paragraph above you are to the extent that the issue here is the difficulty that i have is is twofold it is back i have attempted to identify how on section often we read it in such a way that it includes speech that is not protected by the constitution i n as overbroad or regulation without first balancing or determining the extent of that overlap in relation to the playroom legitimate suite of the of the regulation and are small reasonable in relation to the legitimate sweep of the entire section