 You know, the whole question about did Google do the right thing. I think I am not prepared to say they did the wrong thing. I think it was an extraordinary circumstance, and there was real concern about loss of life. And in the heat of the moment, it's understandable what they did. At the same time, it's very dangerous what they did, and that is undeniable. And it's absolutely vital that they not allow this situation to turn into the type of situation where they succumb to more of these extra-legal demands that do not relate to their own internal rules because we're going to see a slippery slope if that happens. So the interesting thing is Google is a private company, and they don't really have an obligation to protect the free speech rights of other people. Google will assert that they own YouTube and that YouTube is serving an editor's function no different from, say, the New York Times. This is the double-edged issue, is that free speech is kind of the baseline. You need to have protections for free expression. But good people are going to, human rights activists, people doing really wonderful and important things are going to use their right of free speech, and truly evil, awful people are going to also abuse that right. The problem is either you have the platform that is free speech protecting or not. You cannot dictate that, OK, now private employees of a private company should be making their own decisions based on their own judgment on what deserves to live and die on the internet. I do some legal work for Google, and I've not spoken to anyone at Google about this, and I'm not speaking for Google, I'm a First Amendment scholar, and this is just my take. There is an entire line of discussion of jurisprudence and legal debate and political debate about when speech can incite violence, can use silence to speech in advance. So you can advocate for lots of illegal things, right? I can advocate that everyone should go out and smoke pot, right? That's not illegal, but smoking pot is illegal. I can advocate that someone should be harmed, but that's less illegal than harming someone. And the test in the United States over when you cross the line, when you're advocating for violence in a way that can be made illegal, is called the clear and present danger test, and that's when you are advocating to try to incite imminent lawlessness. The big question becomes, when you're talking about an internet video that was made months ago that's being circulated, there's no intent for this video to incite imminent violence. The point of the video seems to be to mock an entire religion rather than incite people of that religion to engage in violence that moment, right, it was months ago. So the interesting thing is that the internet and YouTube have made some of the old free speech tests and cases a little, not quite obsolete, but they don't fit well, they don't really help you answer the question. And you almost have to return to basic principles, like you have to return to the basic principle of order versus liberty, sort of the core question that political philosophers have asked for centuries. And we in a democracy like the United States, we tend to always put the thumb on the scale of liberty, but when you're talking about riots and protests and just real chaos in some areas and murder, often you wonder if the line has been crossed to a point where you have to ban the speech and reassert order. Google faced really a lose, lose situation. They had a situation with a horrendous video that despite being horrendous didn't actually violate their terms of service or their community guidelines. They've created a really tough situation for themselves because they've created an opening for people who are concerned about many of the thousands if not millions of disgusting offensive videos might potentially, despite not directly calling for anybody to kill anybody, might potentially get somebody upset and make them go on a rampage. It's kind of called the heckler's veto in a way that the threat of violence could put pressure on them to take down a lot more things despite the fact that there's no due process around that take down and despite the fact that the material doesn't violate their guidelines in any way. So it's a real slippery slope and the challenge now is going to be will they draw a line and say, okay, last week was last week. That was an aberration. That was an exceptional circumstance. That was not a precedent. We're going back to our commitment to legal procedure and following our own rules and being clear and transparent about how we follow them or will they succumb to more pressure? And so that's what we really need to be watching.