. - understa what yo- wh's goingn. - put th into tt shoppi bag. - yes.- that it. - i was nna put in teddi gift. - what dferencedoes imake? - it mak a diffence. i thina lot ofeople sume that we ll get mried some pot. think that's wt we asse. , that'shat i asme. [laughs] - can't spk for--[laughr] - the ju's stillut. oh, okay [indistinct chatter] [even "champne" king sham - ♪ o, i woul't want live with theain ♪ ♪ o it's a ame ♪ oh, is a ♪ o it's a ame - i justot off wh robertwith t phone. he'seally no feelg good he's nogonna bedown hertoday. , so he ally dot feel gd, 'cse he lis all th and heikes to nd of walk arod outsid an you kno sewhat'soing on t there.he's airty, d man, u know. [p music] ♪ - court te is out 2 2 weeks ay and becae of se paperwk technilities at weren done exactly the bk, itooks le everytng that robt owns wl go awa [indisnct chatr] think itould vastate m. i ink if hwas gonndie er some tward evt, that wld be it he's beevery depssed thpast coue of wee becausof that. i mean, think itould bedevastatg to a l of peop. i n't knowf he'llhave to out thaday or wheth they se the

. ♪ ♪sol: wn we capre stori thatre in ouline ag or iour commity, have a ch bet r understaing of w weve surved asumans isli kewe tell or ies. ♪ ♪ name isol g uy i'm e direct of the deatof my twfath er , you kn, backgrnd is amixed ce. myarents a both amic ans. mom om upsta new yor she'born jewish. fath from kaas city,missou, a blac man. bui grew uin a sma town in briti columbi can adcalledrand forks. ve small cmuni ty not verse inwhat wwould y traditional ways now but diverse in, in experie nce and in kind of the way that peop wante tocare f each other. also, a fe pla ich i thk for a t of brotherand sisters growing in america, you're fe u can ta ris ks you n explor you canhink can ask esti on u can geoutside what isyour kwn envirme nt. and at's whai thinkhas shap, shapede the most. this, is body m in while i'mi xed, the rld has ly ever en me approacd me as black n. whenou're bo in thisountry as a bla m an the's this tng thatgets p on yo it, like, om! it just drped, it like a ke.like, 's just li this...(imitatechains lki ng)it's aost like-- it ctains u. and,nd it's ur ur safetis in da e

i understa are saying, look, this is a criminal case. a very heavy sentence. and forcing us to say, we have th discomfort with crimes that don't have mens rea. this is a different sort of question. you are not saying, well, just because a crime doesn't have one it's cotitutional. your aumt is a first amendment argument. i ston't know very many of our cases or any of our cases th have made a real distinction between criminal nalties and civil penalties with respect to what's permitted or prohibited under e rst amendment. mr. elwood: the only thing i can point to, again, is the defamation context where they draw distinctions between civil liabitand punitive damages. which ask -- and the cases like i think it's reno vs. aclu where they said crimalenalties pose special concerns. the ple ere it would normally arise is in the civil protective order context which i think is reduced because the rs who is the recipient of the threats or statements has a first association. it sorts itself out in other areas. like in the tort of neglect infliction of emotional distress,

house select committeeousen chin on china, i see democrats, a lot of them understand the threate understathis would be an opportunity to come together for that th ittive, to neutralize and match the power. f real >> that's exactly right. there's a couple of reallyimpres siimpressive indian-americans.s one is the ranking democratht on the mike gallagher select committee, raja krishnamoorthi thi. he's just excellent in his speeches. he's a very shrewd observer of chinese misconduct. the other one is ro khanna from silicon valley. he, too has been very, very okncerned about what china is getting away with. i can't believe that they support this kind bidenadmi administration policy. they seem to be much more aligned with republicannitn view of china. so this bipartisan approacha th is ouris only hope, i think,py brian. >> hey, you know, this spy callyin, he called it a sill bal balloon. >> i'd like to know what's in it. yes, three train cars worth >>three trthe spy equipment. when are we going to know what's in it and why are wg toe ououtraged that they have a spy station, 90 millions of 90 m

uh but i don't understa t government to be limiting its argument only toris. >> oh,o ead. >>eah. >> no, my hypothetical. >> yes. >> thank you. llthat's what i wanted to ask you about. unrstood your second point to be that the first amendment prohibs e criminalization of the solicitation of conduct that is unlawl t not criminal. is that your second point? >> that is correct. >> and you think that's true across the board in all circumstances? yes, justice alito, because we're tki about whether speech is categorically beyond the protection othfirst amendment. so any time you have a law targeting speech which would cover a soliciti law, the first step is, of course, it's a law taetg speech. you uh you know, trigger first amendment scrutiny. now, if the law fits within narrow category of historical exception, like obsceny d so forth, then it doesn't have to satisfy people >> ok. so solicatn uh soliciting uh someone to engage in prostitution, uh that's unconstitutional. criminalizing the solicitation of someone to engage in prostitution. that's, that'unnstitutional. >> no, justi

based upon your experience, helphe committ to understa other types of ergent scams, con jobs, forms of fraud that can emerge similar to what ms. distefano experienced. >> thank you, and just for clarification, i actually just to clarify this-- >> thank you. >> and ms. distefano experienced just the beginning not the end for sure, if you can have intellince that can impersonate anybody don'tave to see them. and accuracy, they can pay attention to subtle cues in your speech and now imagine that someone can just mast, you know, thousands of cops of suc agents. what are the possibilities? there's many. i go over many in my statement and you can persuasion, using that. this is how we do advertising in the future. and it's actually quite sca if you start to use your imagination. >> just last week, dr. madry, issued a warning that scammers are using ai to create fak pornography using clips on social media accounts and blackburn works through some of the information we've using on child sex abuse area. this will require our study. with my remaining time on this first round, dr. madry, i'd like

gorsh:econd, with respect to the stalking possibilitunr colorado law, the statute's very broad, i understa ts particular prosecution had something to do with speech, but i don't ke your argument. i want to make sure i got it right. d't take your argument to be upsetting at all. prosecution's based solely on conduct. so that ndt stalking is an entire sarate matter than speech. wh y are concerned about is a mens rea with speech. mr. elwood: that's right. sentially only when the focus of the prosecution is on t threatening nature of the words. otherwise if it's frequency and repetitiveness ounnted conduct i don't think that presents evea rst amendment question. not the first amendment question we have here. justice ga could i take you back to the first part of jugorsuch's question. if your basic argument is first ent chill, i'm not sure why it should make a difference there is a criminal consideration here as opposed to civil action. indeed, when we talk about libel, i think one of the first cases after "new york times" v. sullivan presented exactly that quti, and the court said, a sanction i

why he wouldn't know that, deste visiting the border and talking to the border patrol agents and understaingthat frankly it is just common knowledge that those are the ttics. >> mr. wolf, mr. scott, whoever is comfortable, the secretary had more than two yrs to observe theailure of his policies and to either change course or redesign if not allowed to buy president biden. he has don the opposite, doubling down on the policies and implementing new programs. does this strike you as someone helplessly respondin to a crisis or someone intend on policieshat caused the crisis? >> i believe he's very committed tois policies and i would like to comme on your last question for the secretary. i put in writing as the chief of the border patrol and there was that wt through i want to come back to you with this question. why would theepartment of homeland security oppose the cotruction of more border wall systems eecially when bder patrolgents routily say it's an important part of the toolkit? >> because the president campaigned. >> mr. scott, since you're here i want to thank you for coming but before a