 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee and we are continuing our deliberations on age 18 and act relating to sexual exploitation of children. And when we last met the Attorney General's Office and the Defender General's Office had both testified and have proposed to meet in the interim and hopefully come up with some language, some compromise language to move the bill forward. And so I thought, while we're waiting for Professor teach out, perhaps we could hear from both Attorney General's Office and starting with, with David share I know we have some time time constraints so so good morning David welcome and you and why don't you start and then hear from Marshall as well. Good morning. Good morning everybody at David share with the Attorney General's Office update is pretty brief, we did meet yesterday and talked about possible compromise language, our office is now working on reviewing that we just have to be careful with this stuff make sure that no changes will affect the way we currently do business in the current prosecution so so we're doing some thinking about those and we hope to either bring something back to the committee or circle back with Marshall for further discussion, you know, in the next day or so. Apologies we haven't been able to close that circle just yet. I absolutely appreciate your work on it and understand that things seem to be more challenging all around these days. So, thank you. Marcia, I agree with everything that David just said we reached an agreement on some language and he had to run it through his criminal division and my understanding is that's what's, that's what's going on. So, other than that, I have nothing to report. Okay. All right, well great again, I appreciate it. And we'll try to get you back in maybe later this week. Okay. And, all right, thank you. Thank you so much and I do see Professor teach out connecting. In a minute. Good morning. Good morning, Professor. I can't actually I can't hear you I think you're muted. Let me see if I can unmute you. Okay. There we go. I apologize. Apparently we did not have zoom downloaded on my office computer so I was delayed in making contact. No worries it's always good to see you thank thank you so much for for being available to speak with us this morning and give us a little constitutional law primer. As you know we're working on h18 regarding the sexual exploitation of children and can introduce yourself for the record and and talk to us about the bill appreciate it thank you. Thank you chair I have prepared about three pages of written testimony, which I would like to submit with a record. Peter teach out I'm a professor of constitutional law at Vermont law school, and I am going to track but not read by written testimony. Hold on just a minute while I pull it up. Great. Thank you and then if you when you when you're able to submit to Mike Bailey will also post it on our, on our committee page. I've got to find it now hold on just one second please there it is okay. The question before the House Judiciary Committee Madame chairs I understand it is whether h18, which would add simulation to the list of prohibited conduct in Vermont sexual abuse of children statute would be found to violate the free speech protections under the First Amendment. The language of the proposed amendment that I have may not still be the language of the amendment today, but under paragraph seven as I have it. It reaches follows simulation means the explicit depiction of any conduct described above that creates the appearance of such conduct and that exhibits the uncovered portion of the breast genitals or buttocks. Just, I understand that there might have been some negotiations about changes in that language, but my testimony has got to be based on the form of the paragraph seven that I received. I am going to suggest that to avoid possible constitutional problems, the language of paragraph seven be changed to read as follows. Paragraph seven quote simulation means the explicit depiction of any conduct described above that creates the appearance the children participated in the conduct and involved the use of actual children in the production of the sexual conduct of sexual conduct. And the basic thrust of my testimony which is not terribly long is that I think those changes are necessary to avoid potential constitutional challenges. So in my written testimony I start off to describe that normally sexually depictions of sexually explicit conduct are protected speech under the First Amendment with the narrow exception of what's called technical obscenity, which is defined by the Supreme Court in a case called Miller versus California, which said not protected speech, if the work taken as a whole appeals to the prairie and interest is judged by local community standards, and depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and has no or lack serious artistic literary or scientific value. Now in the Ferber case, the court dealt with a New York statute that made production and distribution of child pornography, a crime. And in that case, very importantly the court suspended the requirements that normally apply said those requirements don't apply to child pornography. And the reason was because the court found the state had a compelling interest in protecting children from the physical and psychological damage suffered from being used in the production of sexually explicit material. That's really important. That's the rationale. We're going to suspend the normal requirements, because the state has a compelling interest in preventing the harm suffered by children in the actual production of the depictions of sexual conduct. Now that rationale was reaffirmed in a case called Ashcraft versus free speech coalition. In that case, the court struck down a provision in a federal statute that criminalized the production and distribution of digital images what we would call virtual child pornography, where the images conveyed the appearance of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. But it did so in a wide range of conduct, a context including those in which adults were involved, pretending to be children, including those where the material had been digitally manipulated to make it appear as if children had been involved in the production, when in fact they hadn't. And the court struck down that provision, saying it covered a lot of depictions of sexually explicit conduct that did not fall within the narrow confines of the ruling, because it covered situations where children had not actually been used in the production of the material. Thus, there was no compelling interest in censoring this material because the compelling interest is preventing the harm that occurs to children who are involved in the production of the material. So, why how does that apply then to paragraph seven. Why the ruling of the court's decisions in the fervor case and the Ashcraft case to the proposed amendment, as written. It raises two questions. The first question probably not terribly significant. But the first question is whether simulations of sex depictions of sexual conduct should be treated the same as actual depictions of actual sexual conduct. And if we look at the cases, we find that the court has said at least with respect to depictions of sexual intercourse of the ultimate sexual act. The court itself has treated both simulations and actual conduct as interchangeable. Whether that would be extended to the other forms of sexual conduct that are prohibited under Vermont's child sexual abuse statute. I am not sure there are no court rulings but I think it's highly likely the court would extend the same treatment to depictions of other forms of sexual conduct included in that statute. There's still an exception of one provision which I think describes as prohibited sexual conduct what we used to call petting, but it is touching of the, I think the breast, the uncovered portions of the breast with an intent to arouse desire I'm not sure whether the court in that area would would say simulations ought to be treated the same as depictions of actual conduct but I think that's really a minor matter and we need not be concerned with it today. The second question is whether the statue the proposed paragraph seven would meet the requirements of the firber case and the ascroft case, and I don't think that they do hold on just a second while I change my screen. The problem with paragraph seven at least in the version I've been given that it would make a crime to produce or distribute depictions of simulations. Whenever those simulations create the appearance of such conduct, even when no children may have been involved in the production of the simulations. For example, I think it would cover simulations using adults who appear to be children. If that's the impression that's given. I think it would include simulations involving or using images of children which have been manipulated to make it appear as if children, perhaps even real children are engaging in the conduct, even though they were not involved in the simulations images involved, but not the children themselves. If children have not actually been used in the production of the simulations. I think then the Vermont, the proposal paragraph seven is written goes too far. It would go beyond the justification the court finds in the firber case and again in the Ashcraft case for allowing that people who produce and distribute sexually explicit material be prosecuted under child sexual abuse laws. That's why I suggest we amend the paragraph to basically provide it is those situations where the depiction creates the appearance that children participated in the conduct, and importantly, involved the use of actual children in the production of the depictions of sexual content. And that would bring, I think paragraph seven in line with the courts rulings in the firber and Ashcraft cases. But it's important to see it would have some consequences and the committee might not want those consequences. The simulation paragraph were amended as I propose. It could no longer be used as a basis for prosecuting those who produce and distribute depictions of sexual conduct that create the appearance that children participated in the conduct, if adults instead of children were used, or if images of children were manipulated to make it appear as if they were engaged in the conduct. Even though children themselves were not used in the production of the simulations. I want to stress that the change that I'm suggesting distinguishes between the use of images of actual children, not made criminal, and the use of actual children in the production of the simulations. I'm not sure that's what the committee wants to do but but I think that would be a consequence if my proposed suggested changes in the language of paragraph seven were adopted. I have just one final point that I would like to make you may have noticed that in my proposed amendment I eliminate reference to uncovered portion of the breast genitals or buttocks in paragraph seven. So for two or three reasons one I don't see why that's necessary from a constitutional standpoint. I don't see what First Amendment purpose it serves. I also do so because I don't think it's at all clear I don't know what an uncovered portion of the breasts is displaying a little cleavage is the portion of breasts revealed when somebody wears a bikini uncovered. It's not clear uncovered means that portion of the breast that's not covered but that is not very clear there are other ways if you want to go there of describing that which should not be revealed or should not be involved. And I do so primarily because I think when you add that language, it would limit some of the situations for prosecuting simulations of sexual conduct with minors that ought to be prohibited. I'm going to give you a simple example. Take a video that depicts a large adult male pulling what appears to be a child's head toward his crotch area after he's unbuckled his belt and unzipped his fly. No, no flesh shown but that has okay. The camera then shifts to focus on the man's face who appears to be having an orgasm. Is that simulated Philadio. Yes, it is. Okay. Would it be covered by paragraph seven is written any answers I don't think it would be because there's no uncovered portion of the genitals or breasts or buttocks involved. That's a classic example of simulated sexual conduct that probably ought to be prohibited by the Vermont statute. Would it be covered by the proposed change in the language of the statute that I've suggested yes it would. It would be because it would create the appearance that a child had participated in the conduct and involve the use of an actual child in the production of the depictions of that conduct. So, is it a simulation short a simulation of Philadio, but it certainly would not fall within the definition of simulation under paragraph seven, as it exists. That's just thrust of my testimony I'm sorry for having rushed through it I think my written testimony may be a little bit more helpful, but that's the basic thrust of my view of whether or not paragraph seven is written as likely to encounter problems under First Amendment. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that very much and also looking forward to actually seeing the language, and Mike will will post it when he can I, since we do have I must see any hands from committee members but we also do have legislative people here and the Tony general's office. Proposer of the other build just want to give people chance to any questions or comments, Michelle, start with you. Just want to make sure you all we have professors each out here. Sorry about that I'm just looking there so I think the, the, I would disagree with regard to the inclusion or center. I mean, sorry, Professor teachouts suggestion that you didn't need the nudity portions. I think it's important with regard to narrowing the scope. And with regard to the simulation, because when we had been talking about this earlier and the defender general's office brought up the idea that there may be, you know, a movie on Netflix or something like that something that you're not intending to sweep in. And we want to make sure that we're that we're keeping this as narrow as possible and so I think that the nudity provisions help a lot and that's a big difference from the language that was offered last year. If it's a, you know, the issue of what what constitutes the uncovered portion of the breast there, you know, you can play around with that definition if you look at the voyeurism law that you all passed, maybe about a decade or go. I think I'll go back and check but I think the definition is slightly different than what was proposed here by the attorney general's office I think it's like the, the, the breast below the areola or something like that but we could look to other, you know, portions there and if that's more comfortable for people and we would use an existing definition is probably a better idea and we can bring that in and tweak it, but I do think that the language with regard to the nudity is an important part of that. And with regard to the actual child but I think you know we've discussed this quite a bit and I think we all agree that it does have to be an actual child involved in the simulation I don't think anybody has disagreed about that it's just a matter of discussing between the stakeholders about where we want to clarify that do we want to do it in the definition of child in the definition section, you know, I tend to not like. I mean, we do that and you can have a different definitions of child throughout the statutes and a child can mean, you know, a person under the age of 18 and one title it can mean someone under 16 and another section and another title, but generally nowhere, you know, in throughout the statutes, does the definition of a child mean anything other than a real actual living child and so I think my preference would probably be to leave that definition and then incorporate, you know, into the language that it is an actual child someone somewhere in there but I think we're all in agreement of that I think it's just a matter of the DG and the AG discussing about how what they're most comfortable with tweaking it and do we do we go just narrowly with regard to the simulation and clarifying that it's an actual child or do we do it where it's more comprehensive with regard to the whole chapter. Well, thank you, Michelle I always enjoy our discussions and I'm glad that you push back just a little bit. I think you have to ask the question of the hypothetical I gave of which is sort of a convention and a lot of films where you have a large adult male that pushes the head of a child or some other female victim into the crotch area unbuckles the belt and then and then the camera shifts to the man's face and he appears to be having an orgasm. If actual children are used in the production of that simulation, shouldn't the statute prohibit that because there you got harm to the children that are involved in the simulation which is the rationale under Furber, and therefore the state would have a compelling interest in preventing that kind of I just raised that question and I don't think when you narrow the statute the way you sought to do it would cover that situation. You can deal with the bare breast problem we can find a definition that makes it a little more specific it usually has to deal with you know down to just above the nipple or something like that. Right. I understand what you're saying and I think, and I think it's a good policy discussion for the committee to have around that I think I would like to hear perhaps from Marshall and David around the issue. And kind of think about the flip side because I don't one of the issues that we were really struggling with and why this issue didn't get resolved. Last session was because we weren't quite sure how to get at the conduct that they wanted to prohibit without it being too broad. And, and so we've kind of felt that the nudity portion was important to make sure that it didn't unintentionally sweep in stuff that we didn't want in there so. But thank you I appreciate it. Before I turn to Barbara. David or Marshall. Sure. So, man, I agree with Professor teacher around the inclusion of language that makes it clear that what we're talking about as an actual child. That's been, that's been one of my arguments all the way through this. I think as far as the language around nudity. The reason why I think it's important to have that language in there is because there's the. There's actually like really mainstream movies movies that are on, you know, lists of the hundred best movies of all time that that language if there was no nudity language in there, then this statue sweep it in like for example, the movie taxi driver, Foster was 12 years old when taxi driver was film, and that certainly has simulated sexual intercourse, but not sexual intercourse that shows any nudity doesn't show any explicit depiction of the genitals. Taxi driver is a movie that's available on Netflix, it's or maybe not Netflix, but it's on it's on Amazon Prime anyway, and it's, you know, a highly regarded movie. I think it's even in the criteria on collection I mean it's, you know, it's, it would be really problematic for us to criminalize possession of taxi drivers same as true. The year or two before taxi driver was the movie. Sherry baby which had. I'm trying to remember the actress, but it was it was deals. Yes, that's correct. And she was certainly underage in that movie, and that involves simulated depictions of of intercourse so did in 1994 the movie kids, which I think was one of the first one of the first movies released into theaters to get an NC 17 rating. This film when Rosario Dawson was only 14. And that certainly included depictions of of simulated sexual intercourse and that movie went on to win awards. There was a movie last year out of Vietnam called the third wife that one at Sundance and was, you know, internationally successful. It was very controversial because it included some very very explicit depictions of sexual intercourse involving a 13 year old actress. So I think that we, you know, but the one thing that all those movies have in common is that those depictions don't involve exposure of the generals of breasts. And so I think that in order to avoid sweeping in that kind of, you know, mainstream mainstream sort of, you know, typical popular movie that we need something in there that that that that separates those from what we're trying to get at. And I agree that the language around unity is not very clear. And I would also be interested if there's some other way to kind of separate out what we're trying to get at versus the, you know, sort of mainstream commercial productions that do involve young actors and actresses and do involve simulations of sexual activity. If there was some better way to do that. I certainly be interested in considering that. I think that just through this process. This is what we've come up with as the best way to kind of filter those out so far and understanding that that may mean filtering out some of the kind of stuff that is, you know, really objectionable, and that, you know, I think that a lot of people would want to see criminalized but I think that goes back to some of the, you know, I think I submitted in my testimony last time I submitted some written testimony with an example of a facial challenge to a case that just had some great language around why we, why the presumptions in First Amendment cases, certain of the presumptions of constitutionality and the burdens of proof are flipped. And part of what the court in that case said was that when you're talking about First Amendment speech cases, that it's way more important to be under inclusive than over inclusive, and that over inclusive is actually where you start to get into the prospect of a facial challenge and invalidating a statute. So that's my argument for keeping the nudity provision in there, or something like it if we can come up with some other way to sort out what we're after from what we really can't be criminalizing. I'm absolutely open to other suggestions. But I think we have to do something that separates those out. Thank you, Marshall. Appreciate it, David. And then we'll get to you, Barbara. Thank you, Professor. Appreciate your testimony here today and the piece that I and I think the first two witnesses who spoke address the nudity aspect of it well and I appreciate your concern and happy to think about ways that we can define that more clearly. One question I had that I wanted to focus on briefly is the actual child aspect of it which, as folks have said has been the subject of a lot of discussion. Our reading of the statutory scheme broadly not broadly of the statutory scheme in this chapter I should say limited to chapter 64 of title 13 is that the definitions already limit any unlawful behavior to the to an actual child. In other words, in the definition section, which the bill only has, you know, a piece of the definition section subsection one of the definition section. 2821, which is, as I said not in the bill but obviously in the statute defines a child as any person under 16 years of age and the statutes that actually define the criminal behavior later in the chapter, use the term child. So it's always been our reading of the law that the statutes are already limited only to those circumstances that involve a person, a human being who is under 16. And because of that, the we couldn't be, you know, adding the simulated section does not allow the simulations have to involve an actual child because that is how child was defined for the purposes of the chapter. And always been our read of the statute I think they're, you know, that that's been one of the key questions here is that matter of statutory interpretation really as much. I think we're actually there's a lot of agreement on the constitutional interpretation. There's been some difference on the statutory interpretation side of it in terms of bill drafting and just always wondering what your thoughts were on that potential reading of the statutes. Well, you're David right. I am. Yes. Look, look, I'm just reading the language of the statute. And I think you're right that possibly if you read the rest of the statute it clearly only applies where an actual child is involved although section seven does not say that right. The requirement is it creates the appearance that children or appearance creates the appearance of such conduct something like that right. Okay. So, I've got two situations one is where an adult appears in a video production appears to be a child right that clearly wouldn't be covered as you at least with your reading because you've somehow worked in the actual child must be involved. There are also situations where you can manipulate digitally manipulate images to take an actual child, an image of an actual child right and make it appear as if that child is engaging in sexual conduct when the actual child in fact has not been used or abused in the production of the similar you just grab it out of a catalog or something like that. Now, do you want to cover that or not. I think if you want to cover that you're going to run into trouble under Ashcroft, because Ashcroft said you know that's one of the problems. This statute this provision the statute doesn't eliminate the problem of it being applied to manipulate digitally manipulated images where children were not actually involved in the production of the simulation so I think you have to that's my view that even if you got actual children or images of actual children not enough, you've got to limit it to those situations where children have actually been used in the production of the simulation. That's, that's my, that's my response to what you just asked. Thank you Professor and this is one of the pieces that we are working on in terms of potential clarification so I appreciate your, your thoughts on that and we will keep working on that. Thank you. Okay, and if I could respond briefly, Madam chair to, I believe it was Marshall's comments. Well, well taken and I just just watched taxing driver last week so I'm very much aware of that move. You know the problem is and it might be a difficult line to draw statutorily, if you don't want to prohibit the legitimate use of children and simulated sexual activity legitimate use, but you want to avoid the abuse of children in the production of child porn. So how do you, you know how do you draw that line and the effort is, well what if we put in some requirement of nudity I'm not sure whether that makes the kind of distinction you want to make but at least, you know you want to, I think your point was a valid one Marshall and and also Michelle about at least explains why you've got the nudity requirement in paragraph seven. I don't like it because I think it eliminates situations where no nudity is involved in children are clearly being abused, and you want to allow the prosecution of those who abuse those children in the context of producing depictions simulated or otherwise of sexual conduct. Thank you. Michelle did you want to chime in or I wasn't sure if you wanted to chime in or if not all. I think, I think everybody's covered that. Yeah, okay, great. Barbara, thank you so much for your, for your patience. I have a problem it actually circled around to Professor teacher just touched on the issue I wanted to ask so let's look at the situation again of Photoshopping in a real child into a production. So, if the law is about the interest of the child, the harm didn't come in that case from the making of the film, but I am concerned about potential harm that comes once that film is distributed, and that child may be put at certain kinds of risk. Because, well, I don't know, I think being a social worker and having worked with kids that have been vulnerable, just raises and antenna for me about. Oh my gosh, Susie Jones, you know, lives in our town and we know she likes sex, even though she's eight so like I just worry about that harm and there's no discussion right now. Back and forth that it yesterday we had a training on implicit bias, and one of the videos we saw that was very powerful involved using a little girl and having her dressed in different makeup and clothing to see how people would react to her, and they had to stop because the little girl got pretty upset. And so that made me start thinking about. Okay, we're focused on sex but what about a child in a movie where there's like violence like are we. We follow the what's upsetting to child actors, because it is bigger than just this and again I know the importance of the First Amendment so I'm just curious to get your take on those sort of two variables. Thank you. Thank you. And, and representative Barbara Rich Richardson. Yes, let's deal with your two questions in order. Okay, first question I think is very valid. And we find it reflected discussed but not decided in the Ashcraft case. There are some observations in the federal statute. One just said prohibited or made criminal all forms of digital manipulation of videos that simply made it appear that children were involved, whether at all actors were involved or if they took artificial people and just you turn them into looking like real children, it covered those and the court said no this goes far beyond further because further was based on the notion that children are harmed by the by being involved in the production of the material. It's interesting that there was another provision in that same federal statute that the court said we are not going to consider it because it's not been raised in this challenge. But it looked at the second kind of harm that you just identified that is where the image of an actual identifiable child is involved, even though it might have been manipulated into a scene that looks like it. And I said that kind of harm and the court just suggested that looks to us more like the kind of harm that was involved in fervor, which is your point right. We don't have to decide that. But that's an interesting question so we might think about in this statute whether we want to, you know, include not just what I have included where actual children are involved in the production, or where the image of an actual child is used in the simulation, you know, in a way that would do damage long term to that child, especially in smaller communities if that image were clearly identifiable so I agree with you that I think there's room within the Furber and the Furber Ashcraft framework to prohibit that as well, although the court itself hasn't ruled on it. And now your second concern was, I think there's a movie called Cuties, a French movie. Some of our congressional representatives in Washington think that it's a movie showing young French girls. Many of whom from sort of minority communities are making all sorts of moves and engaged in all sorts of sexually suggestive moves. So in Washington think that constitutes child pornography. Now it's not child pornography as we know it, but and it wouldn't be covered by this statute. I don't really know how to, how to deal with that. That question but but I think it's a legitimate one. It goes I think far beyond what, what this particular sexual abuse statute is intended to deal with that help at all. I mean, that one again is sexual is sexual. So again, let's say it's the little girl's going to get blown up into 12 pieces. And, you know, that's, and she's seeing her leg in one side of the room or, you know, or some horrible Freddie Krieger is going to do something to her like, I know we're sort of triggered by sex but what about like intense violence that might give a kid incredible nightmares I mean, that is a real problem with American First Amendment law depictions of sexual conduct. It seems to me that the court interestingly has refused to say depictions of violence, you know, violent video games and so on, follow up with First Amendment protection it's a peculiarity of American culture in some ways. Depictions of violence protected speech depictions of raunchy sexual conduct, not protected. But that's, that's the simple answer. So, so if we had a scene where we someone goes in and blows up a infant childcare center, and they use real children for it. No big deal, right. Under First Amendment. I mean there's no, there's no, maybe there's child labor law or something but I can't there's nothing that would stop that. Children in depictions of violence as far as I know, as far as all of the court's cases so far indicate not. I mean is protected under the First Amendment. Unless the clothes blow off. There was a very famous involving a California law that limited access by, by minors to violent video games court struck it down. Invoking grim fairy tales as a basis for doing so. Hey, look, I, we inherit this stuff but that is one of the oddities of American First Amendment law depictions of violence protected speech depictions of certain kinds of really raunchy dirty sexual hardcore porn, not protected. Thank you. Any other comments, questions. I'm seeing hands, but I want to give people this opportunity. I don't think so. Well, Professor teach out thank you so much. Madam, Madam chair. Look like, look like Marshall had his hand up. Okay, I'm sorry. Thank you. I did I just had a brief response to you representative Rachel since question and this is not really a response about the law. But just the practicality of it is that I have a good friend who works as a tutor for child actors on movie sets and TV sets. And what he's told me is that there's basically two things that protect kids in those situations. One is that they they're actually very careful about it. So we're talking mainstream movies here. They're very careful about making sure that children are exposed to that kind of stuff. And then a lot of kids don't actually a lot of child actors I should say, don't actually see the movies they're in until they're much older. They're not, you know, scenes of violence are typically very carefully screened so that the child actors don't see the violence. And in less professional productions. People have actually been charged with things like cruelty to a child for failing to take those kinds of precautions. Now that doesn't address what you're talking about here, because, you know, these statutes prohibit, and they criminalize, not just aspects of how things are produced, but also possession. So this wouldn't, you know, you couldn't do anything here that would criminalize possession of movie that had a child actor who was exposed to something. For example, someone were to make a movie in Vermont and were to use a child actor in a way where they were exposed to really grievous violence or something like that. There's potential that they could be charged under cruelty to a child or child endangerment, or that it could become a child welfare issue where the child's parents, whether they are the people producing the movie or not, could be held responsible for allowing their child to be so exposed. So, I think that would just be the quick answer to that. So, German grad, if I could make just one final comment, and then I will be happy to be relieved of duty. If you make as many comments as you'd like. I'm trying to thread the needle between wanting to make possible criminal prosecution of those who produce and distribute simulations of sexual conduct. When children are actually being abused in the production, and the kind of simulations we see in movies like Taxi Driver. I'm sure there are hundreds of other movies where, and it seems to me what you can do, it is not constitutionally required, but it certainly is possible, is just build into the Vermont statute, something like the third requirement, provided that works that have serious literary, artistic, social or scientific value will not be subject, I don't know what, that will be a defense to prosecutions under this provision. I'm going to build that right in and it seems to me that would be a way of shifting out those legitimate films that simulate sexual conduct and activity, but also not make that defense available to the scum bags that produce child. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much again I really appreciate you being with us and helping us think through this. So, and do take care. Thank you so much. Thank you chair. Good. Thank you. Okay committee why don't we take a break and come back at how about 10 after 10 please. Again, turn your, we will remain on live on on YouTube so just turn your videos off and see you soon. Thank you. Yeah, a few things. So there's justice reinvestment to the report. And so one question would be whether or not Representative Emmons committee in our committee, maybe we want to do that together I don't know if we could also bring in Senate judiciary. Ideally that would be the way to go. But I'm not sure but that's, I think that would be helpful for the committee to hear, hear that. Okay. And then we've got on. And then on the 28th with the Senate that's is that the racial disparities is that what that is. Okay, great. Okay, and then I need to get back to a ton about February 9, maybe I think it's their meeting, but I think it'd be great if those of the committee members who could make it if we if we could go. So the very least if our committee can do that it'd be great if if Senate judiciary could do that as well. That's the 9th at 6pm. Okay, yeah. Yeah, no one would adjust our day. If people are able to do that. And then this might just four o'clock tomorrow work for you so me it works for Tom and coach. So we try to keep to four o'clock for scheduling. Yeah, that works. Okay, great. All right. That's all I have for now. And then and like I said earlier contact list would be great for the committee, and hopefully folks have given you their, their contacts and let you know they're not. Have we, I don't remember what we did last week when we did our four o'clock was that live or no. No, no, okay. Yeah. It was on zoom but it was not live. Right. Yeah. So madam, madam chair. Yes. I did speak to Sarah coffee. Just to bring her up to speed with some of the work we're doing, as far as witnesses. And she was meeting with her chair this morning. Because, you know, I think we're all in agreement anytime that we can coordinate committee meetings with the same witnesses, especially. It makes sense. So I just wanted to let you know that. We're actively thinking in those terms too. Great. Good. Thank you. Good. I appreciate that. Great. Thank you. Okay, so it looks like most of our committees are back on. So in terms of h18, I thought that, you know, this morning was very helpful. I think we're at a. I think we'll take a pause and let the attorney general and the federal general's office work together and work with Michelle. Come back with them. Come back with some language. And so, Michelle. So I, so I think in terms of today I think we're all set for h18 and just see. See where folks get, but it sounds good. As soon as I have something I will, I'll let you know so you can get it rescheduled. Okay, great. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you, Marshall. Tom, I thought I did your hand went up and then. Yeah, I'm just going to assume that. Professor teach outs language will be just looked at also just to incorporate potentially incorporate everything I guess they're not incorporate everything but just see just to just a little more information I guess potential potential language. Absolutely. And, and again I haven't checked to see if it's posted but but hopefully it will be posted on our, on our website and also if, if committee members if you're interested in reading any of the cases that have been discussed please let Michelle know and she'll send an email use the cases. I'm certainly not required reading but some of us enjoy, enjoy reading those cases. So, okay, great. And then, so we're obviously ahead of schedule which is not as a