and there's no doubt that my client's graphic images which is the measures they're trying to give very well in fact have that impact but this is political speech and it's a political speech that rests on the highest rung of person under protection and the point that i want this the court to fully understand is that these large graphic images that the client just employ are in fact their message these pictures convey a message to those rich poor quick inexpress and political speech are content based restrictions and in fact the law requires there to be greater protection for political speech like commercial speech and what's interesting here in this post so much of the preemption argument which i will be addressing shortly is across the little one sort of a dilemma because the f a a specifically responsible for the trademark trade name trade in saying is and they had to include that exception because of the f a a requires for by including that exception they now come in a certain measure of commercial speech but tonight are political authorizing expressive activity certain speakers opening up a channel of communications the nevertheless space for use by certain speakers those who have been granted authorization to fly their banners and when you grant i think there's this is really a there's i mean i think we're mixing two things with with regard to before i think you can say they can open up they can open up a form for the particular speech that court on the i mean that that one's sentence that you've pointed out in the regulations if you read down those following sentences i think of the ones that are more  explicit and we're kind of leading into the preemption the point i want to make is obviously we have the sky scientists we have to deal with the sky sign case specifically said that they agreed with the conflict analysis of the colorado supreme court in the banner advertising case they reached a different conclusion based on the facts and the power subject and absent the court said absent a clear statement of the federal intent to do so it would rule that there is no presumption and there's been no clear statement certainly in the intervening years of any advertising is prohibited and other words this is a completely content neutral governmental regulation that applies equally in all respects to every type of  says that it does not constitute a waiver of state and local laws or regulations so nothing could be more clear except that the f a a has or has as authorized exercise  course is free expression which stands for ideas that it is entitle to and of course they're entitled to express themselves and they have many opportunities to express themselves in many ways in our community  there anything other than something that is a traditional public form or something that has been intentionally designated by the government as a place for speech is a non problem well i mean we have a series of cases which concurring opinion explains isn't so much some detail of just indicated that itself identification presents a little less of a problem and therefore perhaps doesn't need the same kind of regulation honor is correct that there comes a point where you move beyond simply the identifying mark trade name trade it's in your trademark and if you're if you're that and glorifying your product or or your corporate image