 We've been talking a lot about this free speech case against the Biden administration for putting influence on, more than influence, threats, intimidation, coercion on social media companies around COVID and around a variety of other issues going back and including the Hunter Biden laptop, but a bunch of different issues. And we saw a lower court rule that the Biden administration probably violated the First Amendment and therefore put an injunction limiting any cooperation and any meetings between the Biden administration and the social media companies. This is an injunction. It's not a final ruling. The trial hasn't happened yet. And then a district court just last week out of New Orleans, the fifth U.S. district court basically affirmed that decision, changed it a little bit, loosened up some of the restrictions on some of the agencies, but basically affirmed this idea that the Biden administration was limited in its capacity to talk to social media companies. Before yesterday, the Supreme Court, basically a leader, Justice Alito, who reviewed this, basically the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for more time before it could fully appeal to the Supreme Court, and asking the Supreme Court to basically stop the injunction from going into effect and giving the Justice Department enough time to appeal the fifth circuit court's ruling in front of the Supreme Court. Anyway, Alito, yesterday, granted that appeal to the Biden administration, basically the limitations on the Biden administration as far as I can understand from what I've read, being eliminated until September 22nd, which is in a week, by September 22nd, the Biden administration has to make an argument before the Supreme Court has to file, basically, an appeal and why this is an emergency and why it's national security and why all of this to the Supreme Court, for the court to make a decision. I think the people suing, which the attorney general of a couple of states, a few states that are suing the Biden administration, they will also be considering this. Let's say the Justice Department, as asked the Supreme Court to stay the order until October 13th, he has stayed the order of the law courts until September 22nd, waiting for the Justice Department to make the argument for why it should be moved all the way to October 13th. Anyway, Alito is basically given the Biden administration a little bit of breathing room here, unfortunately, but we will see. This is not an actual ruling. This is just kind of, okay, I'm giving you time to appeal. I'm giving you time to, it's going to be interesting. This case, both the injunction and the final case, I'm sure we'll go to the Supreme Court. It's going to be a landmark, I think, free speech decision. It's one to watch. It's why I keep updating you on because I think it's so crucial. It is going to be really, really, really important that the Supreme Court or all the courts with the Supreme Court ultimately makes it clear and objective that the government, run by Democrats or Republicans or whatever, that the government cannot interfere with content produced and posted by social media or by regular media companies. The government can't pressure, can't threaten, can't use any form of suggested or real coercion and that any suggestion, any such coercion is a violation of free speech, is a violation of the First Amendment. It's not a violation of First Amendment, again, by the social media company. It is a violation of the First Amendment by the government, restricting the free speech of social media. Social media can decide what to post and what not to post. That's its First Amendment right. The government telling it it cannot make those kind of decisions is a violation of their rights. That's going to be crucial and key to the evolution of social media and to a better understanding of what free speech actually means in this country and hopefully silence all the people who want to increase regulation of social media as a way to address these issues rather than recognizing their private property rights and their own free speech rights. Now there are of course cases which are super rare and super unusual and you would have to really make a case that they justify, whether it's national security or it's what you call it, incitement for violence where the government does have a role. But those are super rare, super unusual, super rare and super unusual.