vir dhully at every one of them, there was either an economic interest that was harmed by the very face of the statute or by the nature of the claim. a delusion of a trademark by taking on someone else's value property rights. so i went back reading cases and the story many, many years ago said look, falsehoods have no value. >> but the breathing space concept is defined by those falsehoods which cause injury rightings that they have or to the reputation of others. and almost every stra chut where we've approved a harm concept as being permissible for recovery, has afekted one of those three things. so please tell me what's wrong with the story, number one. and number two, how does the definition of harm fit in that? what's the harm here that fits within that? >> i think three-points. i think the one reality here is that as i read this court's case, this court has never held or even suggested in any context when the government wants to regulate a properly defined category of calculated, factual falsehood, that it has to meet striblgt scrutiny. >> you said if you want to regulate a false