what does this mean for ron hines, the veterinarian in texas? what it means is if he decided that he wanted to talk to kurdish terrorists about how to -- let's say they have a herd of cats or something like that and they're using that herd of cattle to sort of support their fighters or something, he could talk to them about that and the first amendment would apply to that conversation if he were to be prosecuted by the federal government for providing material support to terrorists. now, if ron hines also wanted to exchange animal crush videos with scottish missionaries in rural nigeria, the first amendment would apply to animal crush videos. but according to the fifth circuit, the first amendment doesn't apply if ron hines is actually just trying to help an animal. so if he wants to help terrorists or he wants to trade fetish videos, no problem. but if he just actually wants to sit down and talk to somebody to help their animal, no first amendment protection. this is a big issue. the federal courts of appeals disagree about the extent to which

now, go all the way around the planet and you'll find ron hines. he's a retired physically disabled texas licensed veterinarian. he has a ph.d. in biology. he spent his career working with exotic animals at a research facility here in maryland. he worked at sea world. he was in private practice. he's just an amazing veterinarian who after he retired because his disabilities made it impossible for him to continue to work, he still wanted to be able to help animals. so one day he and the missionaries in rural nigeria start writing e-mails to each other about what to do about the cat. how should we feed the cat? how can we make sure this cat stays healthy? it was a stray cat, what should we be looking out for? so ron and the missionaries are exchanging e-mails. and ron starts doing this with some other people too, mostly for free although occasionally he would charge people a flat fee of a couple of bucks. to help him cover the cost of keeping his website going. he never made any money doing it. so what has just transpired? a disabled 70-year-old man

so what does this mean for ron hines, the veterinarian in texas? what it means is, if he decided he wanted to talk to kurdish terrorists about how to, like, let's say they have a herd of cattle or something like that and they're using that herd of cattle to support their fighters or something, he could talk to them about that, and the first amendment would apply to that conversation if he were to be prosecuted by the federal government for providing material support to terrorists. now, if ron hines also wanted to exchange animal crush videos with scottish missionaries in rural nigeria the first amendment would apply to animal crush videos. according to the fifth circuit the first amendment doesn't apply if ron hines is actually just trying to help an animal. so if he wants to help terrorists, or he wants to trade fetish videos, no problem. but if he just actually wants to sit down and talk to somebody to help their animal no, no first amendment protection. so this is actually a big issue. the federal courts of appeal disagree about the extent to wh

to this over the phone and reported ron hines for doing that. and that is pure economic protectionism. there is -- no rational person would say that this -- this imabovished double amputee who is not going to a veterinarian who is getting free help from a guy in texas that that should be stopped. it's ludicrous. that's one of the things that happens and one of the reasons why we need to have a rational telemedicine regime. >> another question right there. >> hi. pat mike else from kato. this probably goes to the dr. sharfstein but maybe to the panel in general. it has to do with the complexity of the ultimate regulatory regime we're going to have. i can see, to maybe differ with you on the remote cardio, if you put a halter monitor -- heart monitor on a person, some remote physician can read that and make a reasonable diagnosis and proper prescription without seeing the person. however, if you show up with some kind of -- maybe substantial skeletal pain syndrome, to an orthopedic person, you're going to have to be examined, because you can't rem