situations involving political expression and protest limitations when the government may hear here are very limited to obscenity fighting words cost in law all this activity and none of these exceptions apply in this case because this is the first amendment case involving free speech the supreme court has said that the circuit must independently review the record and come to its own determination address the point if for their conduct given the open to this story yes absolutely probable cause of criminal activity cannot arise based on protected first amendment rights so for example in this case if in fact there were calls for in the all this activity certainly the police had every right to intervene and arrest the protesters or would not be arrested but that that could be interpreted case it depends on the determination if it's expressive conduct then i would know that the court has made it clear of the supreme court that questions  itself well the opposition to the will there's no such see that we did not maintain that was viewpoint discrimination but as we separate with the viewpoint discrimination is only a subset of content base discrimination we do maintain it and behavior so you're certain this was content based discrimination because it looked to be a fact of the communication on the bystanders on the police on the children it was not individuals felt i value the advance transpiring in iraq and this was in the middle of a heated presidential debate and if you put in some of this was to be able to communicate through a visual image  offensive the treatment of these prisoners were as big as a message so it has set forth in the record it is clear that this kind of visual image communicate a message that and i think it was a fairly ingenious while many may disagree with you with how it was portrayed it communicated a message that a picture on a sign would not have communicat and how is it that exactly what they were trying to communicate how else do you communicate the outrage of six or seven men stripped naked forced to stand on top of each other how do you so you can see that the open state you does not require an actual exposure of a gym i would concede dat as long as it's not in the context of expressive conduct that i don't think it can be put into place this state matter how does that help a school purpose of the probable cause well so getting additional to knowledge of the crimes code pennsylvania police officers  and that's the purpose of the first amendment if our state police troopers don't recognize the person i am which read water or beer because well i think that doesn't answer the question the well off i think they do need to and federal courts have made it clear when interpret the performing state criminal laws pay have to be done consistent with the first amendment you cannot criminalize conduct for speech that is protected by the first amendment it violates the supremacy clause that is why we have the first amendment and in this case it was not a challenge to the is not content neutral it has a word called lewd is part of the statute and it requires that the action of a bond or offend others that is amazingly similar to the exact language in texas he johnson with the supreme court said because the act the statute looks to be communicated to impact on the bystanders it is content based because it is content based it has but while we can say anything we want that doesn't mean that we can do anything we want even if we intend by our actions to quote say message is the supreme court said in the in the spot case some years ago the first amendment guarantees had never been thought to guaranteed the right of people who want to propagandize their views if you believe to do so whenever and wherever and however they want so the question here today isn't whether the golf groups activities had some political content of course it did the question is whether police will be what is regulating their behavior based upon that content of a mirror image because our strategy isn't anything like this to texas to achieve in the johnson case the johnson statue and it was expressly directed at flag burning which is the supreme court so it is an inherently expressive i seem to have made the points that i wanted to make that was sort of the last ditch argument you make i can't see how there could not be qualified immunity in this case as to the fourth amendment issue where there is no clear obscenity the supreme court has made it clear that there is a very two different analysis on the first amendment if this record and its analysis confused the two and at times relied on public nudity statutes to justify police officers who are supposed to have this all right to see the purposes of qualified immunity but i repeat i think piers but different question between understanding how to respond to a situation and whether the constitutional challenges be higher now here i think that is confused here one of the ok well i think in certain circumstances that's correct your honor particularly when they are trying to enforce a it into a political demonstration and find something offensive and even then it's protected under the first amendment say i'm going to arrest these individuals i'm going to censor what they're saying because i find it offensive i think it