ms. flanigan has stated. we completely agree that this is not protective speech. deceptive fliers and tactics cannot go unaccounted for and unaddressed. it is particularly pernicious because we are tar getting these vulnerable communities. i don't know that there's much else to say other than this has to be addressed. we are talking about protecting a fundamental right. and if we simply state that in order to provide -- that we cannot provide for this protection of a fundamental right because we are worried that somewhere around the line that some possibility that that speech may be chilled, it's simply unacceptable. and this is false speech. this is false claims, misrepresentations. misinformation. and we do believe that there's supreme court presence to substantiate that. that kags does provide still some guidance as to what we're talking about in this bill. we, indeed, provide that there has to be an intent. the information has to be shown to be materially false, knowingly. and so therefore, that actually still is within the guidelines of what we're talking abo