sayel, tell us what you saw. how was the argument and who staked out what territory? >> it was a very interesting argument ray because this was one of those cases where all nine justices seemed to agree that what this man, anthony elonis did was bad and it was wrong and they seemed to have no sympathy for what he did. at the same time they were really truss traited and grappling with how to circumscribe the law, that doesn't rope in innocent people because there is protected speech, there is true set which is not protected but the supreme court has never before addressed whether there has to be an intent toen threaten someone or harm them or suggest you will harm them or whether a reasonable person can simply construe it that way in order for there to be a possibility of a criminal conviction. so that was a struggle that they had. >> often in the often argument justices signal or pretty much come out and state that they're not buying one of the lawyer's arguments around through exchanges back and forth, they sort of communicate exactly what their problem is, were ther