 So, for the past 10 years, I've worked on the issues, the legal issues surrounding the internet and freedom of speech on the internet and essentially how do we structure the rules and the policies around the internet to promote democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of association. My project while I'm a Schwartzfeller will be to write a book, hopefully a book that even my mother could read and understand, not just a book for lawyers and law professors, about the First Amendment and how we should think about it in the digital age and how we should think about it in a world of iPhones and apps and the internet. And the sort of one sentence version might be, generally when people think about the First Amendment in a law school class, they think about cases involving hate speech and flag burnings and they think about judges determining whether or not the flag burners should go to jail. And what we should think about isn't just the judge and the flag burner, but we should think about the person who's creating an app, Congress, the FCC, the public and the choices they make and also the Twitter lawyer who's fighting requests for information about Occupy Wall Street. A lot of these different decision makers are determining how we will experience free speech for the next century and those are the key free speech questions that we should think about and every branch in our government, not just the judicial branch, is committed and obligated to follow the First Amendment. And so some of the questions are how does the legislature or the federal agencies, how do they comply with their obligation of promoting the First Amendment when their shaping technology is going forward. The reason why this issue is important is because to some extent every issue in our democracy depends on freedom of speech, freedom of association of our democracy functioning. We make decisions about healthcare, about the tax code, about war and peace and these decisions rely on people being able to communicate with one another to debate with one another and today people might debate on Facebook, on Twitter, through apps, through retweets and in the past we might have had our debates and our discussions on public squares. And so the question of freedom of speech is a question that influences almost every other question in our democracy. Who has the power to speak to whom and who's able to persuade another person through video, through text, through in-person dialogue. And so the reason why it's so urgent now is because there are moments in the transition of a technology. There are moments in transitions of communication technology that are more significant than others. People call them constitutive moments. They essentially constitute the new technology going forward. And so some of the most important decisions made about the internet were made in 1996, right? Certain, you know, 230 of the Communications Decency Act has had a huge effect on the growth of the internet in the US and around the world based on this intermediary liability rule, this technical legal rule that actually has done perhaps more to shape freedom of speech in our society than most of the famous Supreme Court cases you've heard of. And so if you're living in a moment where there are these transitions in technology, and right now we're transitioning our communications infrastructure fairly rapidly to the internet, to the mobile internet, to the internet of things, to sort of real-time, always-on way we were always connected, right? If you are there at that moment and you make the wrong policy decision or you don't think through other amplifications, the impact can last for a century or for decades to come.