concerned subject matter jurisdiction you're not asked on this appeal to decide the ultimate question whether the regulations have meant when or challenges by like the first event and the only issue you need to address to decide this appeal is standing which is the only basis on which the district court granted the motion to dismiss then wed new challenges regulations that control essentially every aspect of its outdoor advertising business then we're going to apply for a license alleges that those regulations give to a single state official discretion over permits and license that is effectively standardless the law is very clear that a party subject to such regulations has standing to challenge them as standard as a standard list prior restraint in the city of lake with the supreme court said that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute and whether or not he has applied for a license or what is there on the face of that stature suggests that the content of the advertisement is  is the least relevant all of those standards seem to go to a static environmental considerations possible impact on public safety what is there that and the language raises any concerns that the content of the advertising by your government concern for the bureaucrat who has to issue the permit it is because as is the case in in city of late which also didn't require the mayor to consider the content of the newspapers there were there were no standards there were no standards here there are standards set forth in considerable detail and none of those would appear to have anything to do with content the problem is the standards are so broad that they can effectively mask an official decision which is based on content the regulations required that notice be given to anybody who owns property within five hundred feet of a proposed sign of the proposal to put a sign there and the standard is so broad it basically the director can decide can reject a sign permit application because he finds the sign unsuitable for the area if there is no definition of suitability in the regulation goes on to identify you know a vast number of factors that the director can take into account in such breadth that they encompass essentially the entire police power the director and they consider among other factors these are the steps of the list is not exclusive to health safety in general welfare of the public so it basically allows the director to say i find a sunny unsuitable or i find that a particular company it is it is contrary to the public interest to grant a license or to grant a permit for the for this sign and if the director receives complaints and people complain about signs all the time he can decide to revoke the permit at any time under the regulations finding it unsuitable so if the director changes his a static criteria that were more likely gets responses from the public complaining about the content of a sign the director can act on that not commenting on the content of the sign but invoking these broad general powers and it is precisely the ability the discretion to take any action without adverting to content objections which gives which makes this standardless which brings us within the scope of the city of late with a case where the court said look in the real world even if the regulations make no provision for content the mayor is going to know what's in the newspaper just as the director will know because people will bring it to the director's attention and anybody can drive past side what the content is and if it becomes politically expedient to punish the speaker or punish the speech it is easy for the director to do so it is that that bice which prompted the supreme court and many other cases to say that a system of standard was prior restraint a system where the government has to approve give you a license before you be don't the answer there is no specific allegation that vin weber has pulled its punches for fear of of offending the director but then when there is in this business it is just naive to think that then wagner punches the first amendment doesn't exist literally put to protect the tenet in any event but don't think he meant the threats in his area have to be real and on the basis of that language make a judgment that the threats to first amendment interests are real and substantial is just this is nothing more than an analysis of what language that all that comes into play it is the language of the statute if it is plausibly alleged that the statutory steet scheme gives the government standardless discretion to approve or disapprove speech at least  circumstances which are present here as well the circumstances in the city of lakewood which allowed the the official which made provision for annual renewal and here we have provision for revocation and revocation at any time yes if that's the circumstance the supreme court in the city of lakewood case said that the risk of both censorship and self censorship is inherent and that the speaker has a legally protected interest not to be subject to that kind of legal regime well and sort of like when you had a mayor quintessentially a political position who could be offended by things that a newspaper says about him or her and hence may limit the newspaper rocks that are available to that offending newspaper here you have a bureaucrat not a political figure in forc statute which can sort of like wood is loaded with standards none of which have to do with content doesn't that all affect the real insubstantial threat that the statue poses to first amendment interests  considerably i wouldn't i would disagree with that your honor i think that the fact that there are so many factors listed in these regulations doesn't mean it is it is any less standard less than in the city of lakewood case this there are so many standards in the air drafted in such broad terms that it becomes impossible to prove that there was you know unless the scheme works once you get a permit for an outdoor advertising song your client is free to train the content of that without any further review once it's the term and the aesthetics public at any time understand that are every bit as broad as the standards for for issuing the permit in the first place so and it is not as if the content of the sign is secret the director can see the sun whenever he or she wants and the neighbors the people who live or work in the area if they object to the sign rest assured we'll bring it to the director's attention i mean if you have ever attended zoning board or planning board meeting in a city in which a local signed permit is under consideration you will see that people object to the content of signs all the time and it is i suggest naive to think that even an official within the department of transportation within a eight political administration will not be affected by those kinds of considerations i want to touch  regards as well that it will renewal provision was present in city of wake word in the supreme court felt that that was of materially contributing factor to the first amendment the alleged first amendment questions if it is not necessary to decide on the premiss turned its principle on its head when they ask this court to find that they have standing where they have not only failed to allege actual injury or any risk of future injury but where the factual record in this can easily be tied to the content of a particular message is there anything in the city of way with you that he should be somehow limited to newspapers no absolutely not your honor but the identity of the speaker is well worth it because it goes to the unbridled discretion to restrict protected constitutionally protected expression that's all good language was used in that context and there is no question that these billboards involve constitutionally protected expression perhaps not the same type of or john or of expression that one would find in a in a newspaper but that there is no question the billboards are constitutionally protected expression and i would i majority going to say that the soda machines have the same right as the as the cleveland plain dealer and the majority responded to that portion of the dissent with the sentence that you've that you've quoted saying no we're only dealing here with with freedom of expression i still think your honor that the writing has to be true where the scheme reeses pieces of content be censorship and i would argue that our case is more which the administration is supposed to or which a substantial segment of the neighbors may be opposed to or right am i going to am i going to get in trouble because i got lots of all the billboards do i want to eliminate the director secondly if i go ahead if i say well ok i'm not going to be cowed into not putting it off i go ahead and put it off he can revoke it under this broad discretion where he essentially doesn't have to give any reason in just say he's decided a billboard in this place is not not consistent with with public safety or in the interests of the public or third if he doesn't want to be that open about it he can take it may be in a merits trial that it could be found that this discretion is less what is they say well that the risk isn't as serious as they say but we're talking about what allegation that they have to make to get into court to get given the procedural posture of the case and there are references in the briefing to the experience of this particular plaintiff under this regime and the experience apparently has been that they have been uniformly successful in getting all the permits they need for their billboards and they haven't been i guess are going to few exceptions because they didn't have adequate notice to appointing landowners so that intially nothing but success and that history is relevant because it says that there's the absence of censorship in the absence of self censorship and it's even the lakewood majority agreed courts can presume that an official will act in good faith if it well established administrative practice has developed as it has here and it's hard to imagine that the lakewood majority would have decided the case the same way if it had a record before it that the newspaper had in fact applied for dozens of permits from the mayor and had not one of them tonight standing and this regulation in almost it's identical form has been in place in massachusetts for over a decade as has the minimal requirement and then my dear cannot come up with a single instance where the content of an ad was tied factor on which banner hangs its hat is the general welfare of the public factor and that factor does have to be read in light of the other specific factors that follow that go to the all go to the location of the sign and physical characteristics moreover the meaning of this regulation is informed by the overarching purposes of the statute which are statics and traffic traffic safety and contrary to lakewood which in which the ordinance contain all to confine a man or secession here we do have a list of factors there's a requirement of statement of reasons and there's the opportunity for hearing in judicial review and i would say that those factors together eliminate any animal rest there is a censorship  in fact the mayor's decision could have been appealed to the city council followed by an appeal to the state court and i do apologize for the error however however the fact remains that there were no seniors whatsoever in the ordinance to  decision and as a corollary no standards to apply on appeal  so in the end it would be an on president to expansion of sanding to allow plans to bring a facial challenge on these facts if they ever have a permit to night in the future they will have the opportunity to seek judicial review and raise and as a challenge if affirm a lower court decision on any ground as presented in the record so i would say that it is proper for this court to decide to question and in the motion they actually urge the district court to decide the state  klank burst which of course our position is the court has no power to do under the eleventh amendment but this state claim is unsettled within the meaning of it's never been decided by a massachusetts court and it does involve a very recent sachi that implicates important state power and power that so important that's incorporated in the state constitution so if this court has any doubt about mass starts authority to adopt these regulations and if it finds that the plaintiffs have standing then i  where the lower court to abstain in order to allow the state courts to resolve the question in the first instance before you step back machine and given van wagner's record of success with the permits why do you suppose someone in their you meet the complaint almost the entire company is devoted to the state law so it appears to me that the federal claim was inserted as secondary to the state law claimant and that's just my speculation thank you thank you about two thousand and eight when in several years later the director proposed these particular regulations were substantially broadened to the unilateral power of a single state official then wagner submitted extensive comments on that without getting into it because it really doesn't have anything to do with the with the case been wegner feared that this was not going to be an administration with was going to be easy to work let me address some of the points wagner i think suggested that all of the billboard cases from other circuits that granted standing involved situations where there was some kind of actual injury i think that is not a source of the wasn't any denial of a permit in city of lakewood but i would also draw the court's attention to the more advertising case a second circuit case written by then judge sort of my you are in that case there had been some denials but the regulations under which the permits had been denied wreck billboards that conform to the objective requirements which it did not challenge but was still subject to the unbridled discretion of the permit permits war and the second circuit said that there stablished that still remains irrelevant because things can change your honor the director can change he's been wearing or can take on a new customer that's advertising alcoholic beverages sugary soft drinks any kind of unpopular  unpopular product the fact that we have not incurred the wrath of the director yet doesn't mean we don't subject they're not subject to that risk in the future or our courts supposed to get ahead of this real substantial threat t number other than by creating the record the trip home was created how do we get a handle you don't have to get a handle on it your honor because the law is simply being subject to a regime of standardless prior review be speech as opposed to just a building permit that that is itself an injury in fact that gives rise to standing we can argue below if you were made the case about whether or not there justification for these regulations or whether there is narrowing constructions that can be placed upon it you know you're not here to decide the merits of the case but clearly we have standing to bring our case  miss shannon to dinner when i read the briefs i found them to be helpful and i thought that we might have a robust and enlightening argument and you haven't disappointed me so i just wanted to express my appreciation