they fit within a millard-tight definition. worse than this simple girlie magazine involved there. and they will use the traditional first amendment test, that is the sake of there is a speech at issue, that speech is being limited, it is being done for a good reason, compelling interest, namely, this problem with the x videos and the torture and living in the room, and there is no less restrictive alternative that is not also significantly less effected. i want you to do with that directly because when you have been doing for the most part is saying we have to be in some total new area, etc., but their argument is you do not have to be in the totally new area, etc. apply traditional first amendment standards and the wind. that is their argument, and i would like to hear what you have to say about that, specifically. >> they do not suggest there is any existing exception to the first amendment that would apply. >> this is not an exception. this is a traditional, strict scrutiny, first amendment test. >> they make a feint -- >>