censorship is differen what i am suggesting is that bantam books is, bacay, a censorship case. what they are dog forcing these companies to take down or remove speech the government objects to. i don't quite see that happening here, as opposed to the other theory atyou do allege, which , th don't like what we do, and th are using the levers of government to prevent us from operating. >> yeah, and ifthere were a distinction in thfit amendment between censorship anbuening speech because of its content, then maybe th would be correct. but there is no such distinction. the first amendment requir strict scrutiny when the government censors speech beuse it doesn't like it's content, when it burdens ee because it doesn't like its ntent. in this case, it sought to burden rather than sensor but that doesn't, in any way, alter the logic of nt books, the way bantam books has been pld for 60 years. it has been applied consistently to situations in which government officials -- >> i have never seen any other situation like this. all the other bantam books situations are censorship. >> i don