are we being paternalistic in a new way. and also, what are the causes that is likely. two people just told you that they can't do simple things because of restrictions. there is a real reason behind why some of these things do not work. >> thank you. >> and i think there is a shelter and i think i am going out of my head. over you. i see you each morning but you just walk past me. you don't even see that i exist. go on now to my shelter. there is an empty bed. shelter bed. and all the city leaves are brown. and the city hall budget skies are gray. and i came to city hall and i wanted to say we would be safe and warm. if we had a shelter better today. california shelter dreaming on such a winter day california winter shelter dreaming. on such a winter shelter budget day. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is mark barnes. i am a resident of district 6. i live a couple of blocks north of market street in a heavily populated homeless populated area. it was interesting to hear that most of the empty shelter beds are in bay view. sounds to me like they need to find a fac

you had liberals on the court extending a more paternalistic view towards myers in the eighth amendmentcases in striking down the death penalty for juveniles, limiting life without parole to homicide cases for juveniles and so forth. so you had a view that younger people are different fair. on the right end of the court you had more of a view that they just don't have that many rights, if any. they have none if you are justice thomas and they have rarely any or their rights can be curtailed its use on the morris v. frederick case involving the bong hits for jesus banner that the high school student held during the olympic torch relay. they're the court acknowledged that was a free speech activity, but the state interest and statements that undermine undermined the antidrug message trumped the first amendment rights of minor so i thought if you combined those two strains together you could find a way on this court to uphold that statute or a version of it. but as it turned out the court went back to pretty much the very traditional first amendment analysis that says that the governments

you had liberals extending a more paternalistic view, strike tounge the death penalty for juveniles, limiting life without parole to homicide cases for yufles an so on and so forth. so -- for juveniles,. now with squssties thomas, they've got barely any rights or their rights can be cur can tailed as we saw in a case about the christian banner -- bong kids for jesus, where they did that off school property, but it was the sided they didn't have free speech to promote drug use. but the court went back to pretty much the very traditional first amendment analysis that says that the government's job is not to suppress information an when it comes to particularly outside of school and so when you are, they just, i think were very concerned about creating a new exception, a new exception which could easily be boot strapped to all kinds of other violent or other forms of content that the state decided were damaging. let's remember that i don't think there was any evidence submitted that showed that video gails had ever incited any crimes but there is evidence that record albums have. we hav