afternoon counsel for justice for kent is a member of this piano he was not able to be here this afternoon however he will listen to the oral argument and have to speak in the deliberations with respect in th to those procedural problems it is our contention that the statement that issue is not defamation percentage and further even if it is considered to be defamation per se that is protected jurisdiction exists i don't believe that the complaint on the circuit court of love hole is a viable complaint against a known entity and that was part of our argument to the trial court judge the complaint the second complaint that was filed in the state court was entitled we don't have any versus subscriber though i think also known as food board we believe under the supreme court case of in the local area pursuant to federal law comcast media holdings notified its subscriber of the subpoena and informed my client that he had ten in which to either intervene at the trial court level or they were not on the subpoena because i had been retained once when the case had been removed to a federal court with regard to our jurisdiction where is the final order is there another claim pending oh please there was a transcript of ten to one of the briefs that indicated that this issue was not simply addressed  complaint which again we believe was another team adding a count to which we believe for all intents and purposes was even a violation of rule two twenty four plainly contemplates a separate action of verifying petition be filed prior to any substantive complaint suggesting to the court that there is an unknown entity that exists and th allegations which will prove to the trial court that it will the allegations at least for this will survive three to six fifteen motion to dismiss so that the coroner can balance the is a cause for controversy still remaining on the trial for a level that's kind of on of the substantive complaint the only the only relief that was granted was the granting of the count to which was basically the same type of request that would've should've been part of the verify a petition under rule two twenty four when we pointed this out to the we provided to your honor suggested there was an argument prayer for when i anticipated the jurisdictional questions and problems and did not want to be faced with having to go back to the trial or in an attempt to try to figure out because he essentially made the decision you just was not reduced to writing  if the court interpreters the amended complaint as a rule to twenty four petition it was actually filed after the statute of limitations has run the statute of limitations it can be done quickly and it can be done before the statute runs because the petition is something that the rule plainly contemplates to be done before the substantive if there is a fictitious name that's a different story we're judging i think here the answer to that whole argument is the existence of room to twenty four in other words is there suggested initially by a subscriber though based upon our arguments regarding the knowledge of the complaint that the appropriate course of action would be pursuant to rule two twenty four four petition to be filed in the form of an amendment to what we believe was of no use to begin we believe that the proper course of action was certainly rule two twenty four but separate petition filed specifically to request the identity of subscriber once the court ruled on that that would have been immediately appealable order which we could we believe that in really and in court has to determine whether or not the statement that issue is defamation per se defamation per se has to be looked at at the time period that the statement was made preacher basically it was a rape case and there was a cop there was an allegation of defamation per se by suggesting that somebody was a rapist by using the name of someone who was charged with rape the outcome of that case was that you have defamation percent say based upon some basically just charges so in other words in december of two thousand and eleven you had a person who was presumed innocent and defamation per se has to stand on its own without any extrinsic facts whatsoever so in other words anybody who read that commentary in the internet blog had any reason other said dusty waiting to be exposed they would have to i'm not going to say that it could be considered i think it was different mission potentially perkoff but not percent because it has to be universally not completely without the u n or without any extrinsic facts that  does not mean that it is not protected speech on the first amendment the defamation statement has to be verifiable and it has to suggest objective fac that in your brief i think because the statement was made on a blog in the middle of a political campaign and the standard both locally and nationally had fallen so low that it was unlikely to have been taken seriously and therefore entitled and therefore wasn't title to first amendment protection yet we have no illinois authority do we that would support that came in addition the other two parts of the analysis in direct response to your honor's question were the context look at the larger context and the smaller context we suggested to context to the court  response it to the question one of those was the national political climate climate and then the political climate that may not be the context it's correct if you want to look at the context of the fact that this was an internet blog ok and the context of the actual story in other words the statement standing on its own without any type of context that you could that help you clean what the intent was really come in the statement or what the statement meant he's somewhat meaningless so in other words if this were if this statement were part of someone's people on some issue that paper would give you some context into what that statement might mean the story that was presented on this internet blog was completely had nothing to do with jerry sandusky or with empire school or with anything else the specific elements underneath that story had absolutely nothing to do with each other in other words not only was the comment about mr hadley being said just you wait to be exposed but if you read the next couple of comments on the exhibit believe it or react to the comment that was anything goes i mean where do we draw the line council don't people go on the internet to get information as well are i would absolutely suggest they do but not in the commentary on newspapers  written either by suing them or by complete anonymity it's just like walking into a bathroom and reading their comment how many people actually believe in anything that they read there how many people believe anything that they read commentary to any newspaper article or quite frankly any commentary you know what would it matter for example if it were posted if the comment were posted on a page that no i don't think so judge because if it's not like a letter to the editor of a newspaper or a letter to the editor pastor pastor need certain standards but the editor and the editing  suck there is nothing that on an internet blog if you have to register you can register as a group as it were completely false name is known double checking other than maybe check to see within the email exact address exists e mail also states that there's that there is common knowledge in the community about some of those issues and you suggestion your reply brief that you only meant to remind cling to that he could expect some resistance to the suit but should never have been incorporated in the court file that was a communication between counsel that quite frankly happens all the trial and i'm shocked to see that it actually appeared in court paper commenting on specific things it is certainly involving politics this is a very very very church right in the united states and goes all the way back to pre revolutionary war we're not talking about t exchange of ideas whether they're anonymous or whether there should anonymous whether they happen to be upset in or whether they have to be more thoughtful and substantive so are you saying that touchstone here is because  outrageous or not but isn't this statement wasn't a statement tantamount to saying that hadley had committed a crime no i don't think so just because what at this time in december twent eleven what crime the crime is even suggested in the complaint it's assumed and that's the problem ok this statement without any extrinsic facts whatsoever at this time december of twenty we can't we can't look back on it from the our vantage point now and even if we could i really argue that it's not defamation proceed so far out of the public consciousness or you're saying had he been convicted can you print to mine that have been done that have come to be completely no universally as suggesting some type of specific crime possibly ponzi as i suggested in one of our briefs calling pretty close but why can't we talk about the street where the school will not be first of all i thought it was conceded bible parties that this was an elementary school and second i thought the statement was look at his vantage empire school from his front door or words to that effect now if i didn't paraphrasing incorrectly i apologise well either why is the statement itself even forgetting about if it's defamatory now it wouldn't make any sense if you look at the first part of the statement but i think it's an issue i can't recall exactly whether or not the trial works and turned a specific three or four a finding but certainly the understanding at the time of the course decision based on the part of the cour  my position has been from day one then f you boy had no standing to file anything in the state court the  to turn this information over here in this case comcast who is clearly indicated it's matter of record that they have one person that they have that they that they provide internet right why would they have there have done well in comparison to for example the stone versus pad case imagine these they believed that the language was not the famous word per se proceeded thus in motion to dismiss why comcast did or didn't do what they did beyond their i don't know their position on the federal law who turned over the information to law without a director or which is set forth in the record so i'm not sure about hundreds of past victims at this elementary school or potential victims or parents walking by with their children and that this wouldn't be defamatory that this wouldn't  counsel said well it's a long ago nobody remembers well i just picked up the newspaper a little over a week ago the statements being made on the internet is there a lot of weird expectation because this statement was made about a palate titian during the course of a political campaign that there would i don't believe just because someone puts themselves hour in the political arena and that they then automatically can be called just child molester her any other thing there isn't some told protection of the first amendment fact the case is out there because for so long and just generally understood to have to usually contain hyperbole no more than anything out so i mean you know in a it may be generally understood it doesn't mean that you get told protection  law and i do not believe in there is no case cited to support it that just because you posted it in one place or published it in another is protected by the first well just the vehicle for them to be able to host of their not the ones creating it that is why the house thing and the website issue vs f e u boy created this there's been no denial of it and put it out there posted it published somebody is charged with blah blah blah ok whatever listen to her versus you posting on here or publishing out there that because he was arrested he's a her or he's a murderer he was arrested you're stating a more sandusky was arrested and i frankly don't remember exactly what month that happened but this story just didn't leave the press and then there it seemed like every couple of days more and more people came forward and then perhaps the linchpin in the the pre arrest anyway was when the assistant coach came forward and said you know when i turned away i saw these things and they have put it does that matter that there is an ongoing coverage about these issues does that make it more likely that when you say a sandusky that it is associated with this type of conduct or not in other words if you know if john doe just some some guys gets ar on the news someone is arrested for an allegation of some type of child station and that's the end of it it goes away it's not it's not on the five o'clock news every day for weeks does that matter argument of the day what can i say any type of hysteria getting at but my point is does it does it matter here because this was national news day after day after day after day versus a situation where someone is on the news one day's arrested that the clear implication is that has an extreme affect the situation at the time most people wouldn't know the legal process as we do is attorneys and judges rate the difference between someone standing argument judge are not going to spend that much time on that or all that it's just frankly without any basis in law or fact if the court accepts the fact that people have first minute men right to and protect it things are useless right it is without any any legitimacy whatsoever which one of the reasons that the federal work requires the internet provider to inform the subscriber that this president has been received and that they have not and days in which to do something about it or they're going to offer it so the question of to whether or not subscribing joe could come into court and file a motion