You use the term earlier, indecent speech. In this case, as the majority made clear from the beginning, turned on the notion that this speech was considered indecent, and not the bad, much more offensive obscene speech, which isn't protected or doesn't get that kind of first amendment protection. This speech is indecent and therefore gets some, gets a high degree of first amendment protection. That was also interesting, because this case made clear that cable is different than broadcast for the reasons that we've been talking about, that people can control it. Broadcast can't air this kind of indecent programming, by law.
Cable can air it, and people can control the access that they're going to subscribe to.
And today as the court made clear, they can get these blocking devices, the parents can, to further restrict even that signal bleed that, you know, scrolls through that you can kind of make out fuzzy images. This was completely focused on Playboy Channel as it is an cable television. There will be, yes, and as we get further down the road and the majority makes this clear, as we get further down the road, companies will even have different kinds of technology for broadcasting their programming, so that the whole notion of signal bleed and whether or not something is fully scrambled and we can kind of make it out, that was ultimately become obsolete. So the big victory Christy Heffner is talking about is short term, because it won't be an issue soon. But in the short term, sure, this is certainly one they're happy with.