whether or not the government can do this. This is something I took up with Mr Fletcher,

depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence and there may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain

speech on the internet or otherwise. I mean do you do you disagree that we would

have to apply strict scrutiny and determine whether or not there is a compelling interest and how the government has tailored its regulation?

Certainly, Your Honor.

I think at the end of every First Amendment analysis,

you'll have the strict scrutiny framework

in which, you know, in some national security high-spers,

for example, the government way well be able to demonstrate

a compelling interest, may well be able to demonstrate compelling interests, may well be able to demonstrate

narrative.

So not every situation in which the government engages in conduct that ultimately has some effect on speech necessarily becomes a First

Amendment violation, correct?

Maybe not necessarily, your honor.

I guess the top line question I would ask is has the government

set out to abridge the freedom of speech and in this case you see that time and time again because

if you control that the test for not the test for First Amendment violation.

Your Honor, this flows from the plain text of the First Amendment, right?

No, I understand, but we have a test for a determination of whether or not the First Amendment

is actually violated. So in certain situations, you know,

the government can actually require that speech

be suppressed if there's a compelling interest, right?

...