PSCI CH 5

Okay. Everyone, here is Chapter five covering civil liberties, and I just want to give a few highlights from the chapter to aid your study for the content that will be on the last exam of the semester. When we're talking about civil liberties and civil rights, we need to distinguish some definitions because they are not the same thing. Civil liberties are referring to a very specific limitation on government encroachment of private citizens whereas civil rights, which we will get to in Chapter four refers to equal treatment under the law. Okay. So when we're talking about the source material for civil liberties, we are really talking about the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, which you will know it as the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights and these freedoms in the Constitution are shaped by judicial interpretations, and civil liberties are almost always held in tension with interests of government and the state when there is a national crisis declared, which is discussed at length in the textbook chapter. But we're going to talk about a few other important aspects of civil liberties when it comes to judicial interpretation, and that is really how they got applied to the states, how they became nationalized. This is known as nationalizing the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court deployed a doctrine found in the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court calls the selective incorporation. Now, to pause here, we need to remember the Supreme Court case of 18 33 Barn versus Baltimore. We discussed that in Chapter three and it is also discussed in Chapter five. But the particular notable aspect of Barron versus Baltimore in 18 33 is that the Supreme Court established and interpreted the lack of application to the states. The Supreme Court says that the bill of rights do not apply to the states. The only apply to federal institutions. This effectively meant that the civil liberties were not applying to the states for the citizens of those states only to federal jurisdictions. So this is why it's important. The Supreme Court, after the passage and ratification of the 14th Amendment, looks at the language of the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. And they devise and name this legal tool called selective Corporation, which is the process of bringing the state laws and those their practices under the bill of rights. They bind the state governments and state practices to the bill of rights. Now, I also need to have you understand that selective incorporation is not a universal application. The Supreme Court does not waive a magic wand and say all of the amendments, the bill of rights now applied to the state. Selective incorporation had to be activated on a case by case basis, amendment by amendment case, and even in some cases, a clause by clause situation. It is definitely context dependent. We see evidence of the first incorporation of the 14th Amendment due process clause as early as 18 97. But around 1925 is where we see the traction of incorporation decisions start getting momentum and they start serving as precedents, guiding lower federal courts and lower state courts to apply and how to apply the amendments to state cases. But nationalization has occurred on that one on one basis, and some of the provisions have still not been incorporated. These next two slides are going to show you in this table, the amendments, the particular clause of each amendment and the date and the case which incorporates it, meaning applies it to the state. You can take a look at this on your own time. You can study this a little bit more closely because these slides are available to you for download on Blackboard. But this is a table that is worth studying because you're going to see how each amendment and each clause or right in that amendment got incorporated. We're going to talk about a few clauses of the First Amendment right now. The highlight or the point of emphasis here is the way in which the Supreme Court approaches the First Amendment because it is quite a workhorse when we start thinking about our really basic rights in the United States. And so what this particular section of this lecture today is going to focus on how the Supreme Court interprets reveres the interpretation of speech, assembly, and religion. More notably the conditions in which the Supreme Court puts on the First Amendment, meaning the conditions in which these rights can be limited, which are very specific conditions. Something to think about when we're talking about the First Amendment and incorporation of First Amendment is that free speech does not mean absolute speech. Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that sets the theme For this particular part of the lecture. I'm just going to be discussing the ways in which the Court says that speech can be limited. It's easier for the Supreme Court to identify the ways in which it can be limited instead of just trying to exercise judicial interpretation over the ways it's protected. So any legal case on the First Amendment has produced several legal doctrines. Now, the Supreme Court Okay. And it's judges really rely on devising what we call these legal tests. The kind of create through their role as jurists, new criterion by which to set a precedent for future judges to look at and apply these tests to future cases that would bring these items to the court for contention. So one particular legal test is the clear and present danger doctrine or the clear and improbable danger test. This is outlined at length in your chapter. You can read more on the details of that, but this is simply a case that comes to us from the era of World War 1/100 years ago, about 120 years ago, where the The sentiment, there was quite a few anti government anarchist groups, communist and socialist groups that were speaking out against the federal government. And this was a particular case in which the Supreme Court believed that the state had a vested interest to protect national security to regulate or limit speech that would damage the government's interest in protecting national security, mainly coming from anarchist groups, groups that wanted to harm or dismantle government AKA national security. Okay. The Supreme Court also devised a criterion called freedoms Doctrine, and that basically said that in the First Amendment represents the pillars of democracy and speech is a part of that, and it's one of the fundamental freedoms of a democracy to have open discussion to have dissent, and therefore, there must be heightened judicial protection of the First Amendment, heightened judicial protection of the rights that are nestled in the First Amendment, that's including press, that's including religion, the practice, and the expression thereof. Therefore, because these are considered the fundamental freedoms that uphold a democracy, it is going to take a higher standard of harm to limit them. To transition to discussing the freedoms of the press, the press are subjected to way more protection than the speech. When we're talking about press, we're talking about the written word. This is going to be the independent newspapers, the independent media. But when we're talking about the press, journalists. There is one particular doctrine here that applies, and that's the prior restraint doctrine. This comes to us from US versus New York Times, 1972. This is where the Supreme Court says that no governing entity or an officer of a governing entity can stop the press or stop information before it is published. That would be understood as censorship, put it in another way that a governing, an officer of a government cannot censor the press. Okay. So there's other limitations on speech, right? Remember the whole crux of this lecture is to engage your understanding on the ways the Supreme Court says that speech can be limited, but they are very specific circumstances. One, we've already talked about the clear and present danger test. The Court has to ask or weigh the facts of the case and does the gravity of the evil or the threat? Is it discounted by its probability. And if there's high probability that the threat will manifest, then that justifies what the Court calls the invasion of free speech, the restriction of free speech as a necessary to avoid danger or harm. The Court has also defined the incitement test, and this is essentially saying that the government cannot forbid advocacy of the use of force of lawlessness. The government cannot forbid even the advocacy, excuse me, of lawlessness. Okay. Only when there is an imminent threat. Even if there are groups of protesters that are advocating anti government sentiment, advocating breaking laws, advocating lawlessness, that cannot be censored. That does not rise to the occasion of censorship. Only when the speech is producing immediate or imminent law breaking. That's when the court says the government has a vested interest to put down whatever event or speech is happening. Then there's the Brandenburg test on speech, and this protects speech advocating illegal conduct. There's a theme on all of these limitations and speech. There's a theme with all of these doctrines here and it's that speech all kinds of speech is protected, even the speech may not like. Even the violent speech, speech advocating unsavory behaviors is still protected speech. And this is punctuating the point of the fundamental freedoms doctrine or the preferred freedoms doctrine that the court says that To limit speech, there has to be an incredibly high standard of justifying the censorship of speech. The Brandenburg test points to that. This created an incredibly high bar for the court to use in terms of whether or not illegal advocacy speech advocating for lawlessness is protected. This led the Court to establishing that imminent lawless action test. So I speech is going to immediately incite a reaction of lawlessness, then it can be stopped. There's other kinds of speech that the Supreme Court has weighed in on, and that is something called disturbing speech that Treats of violence, threats of harm. Any kind of that menacing threats are not protected, but violent words are protected. Speech is going to be subjected to these limits. But the subject censorship of speech is going to be made on a case by case basis. I know that's not a very clear standard, but that's where the courts at on speech. The Court is really protective of speech and does not want to set any kind of precedent which makes it easy to censor. The courts have protected violent speech. They don't protect threats, but they do protect violent speech. Even in some cases, the court will protect speech. So long as it does not promote imminent criminal activity. You're seeing a repetitive theme here, aren't you? That the court says that most speech is protected up until the point that it is going to produce an action. That is where the court draws its line. Anything that's going to produce an imminent or immediate action. That's also the same with fighting words, right? Volent words can be protected. Despicable words can be protected. But if there are words that are meant to incite a reaction or an immediate response, those cannot be protected under the First Amendment. We see other limitations on speech that involve these three categories. Commercial speech, that's speech for profit. This is going to be corporate speech, any kind of advertising. These entities are governed and regulated by federal statute and not the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court draws a line here. Obscenity and obscene material. The Court has defined this as publicly offensive language or portrayals that have no redeeming social value. The Supreme Court case attached to that is Miller versus California. I have more on that in the next slide. To think about our last unit in Chapter 14, you were reminded that libel and slander, the action of making knowingly false statements or publishing knowingly false statements to defame another to destroy another's reputation are also not protected. Okay. So when we're talking about obscenity, the Supreme Court has really had kind of a winding path on this and the Supreme Court has really boiled this down to what they call sexually explicit expression. And there seems to be wide agreement that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, but this is a hard needle to thread because not everybody has the same definition of obscenity. We have this war on obscenity beginning in 18 73, Congress passes this Comstock Act and the Comstock Act basically empowered United States Postal Service and all of its agents, it's basically mail carriers to become government sensors and to look at people's mail and to extract what they thought was obscene, which gave the individual biases a great deal of authority over private citizens mail. The Supreme Court then revised obscenity policy in 1957 after quite a few decades. In the decision of Roth versus United States, that's also in your it gives you some of the facts of the case and what prompted the United States Supreme Court to revisit this in 57. But the Miller versus California case is really the important benchmark here because this is where the Court doesn't weigh in on making a value judgment of what's obscene or not. The Court shifts the primary authority for governing or regulating obscenity or sexually explicit expression back to the states and local governments. This is where we get what's called the community standard Okay, that the Supreme Court tells local communities it is their job to uphold what the community value is on what is depicted or interpreted or internalized sexually explicit expression or not. So it's up to the local jurisdictions. And the Supreme Court sidestepped that and refused to make any kind of ruling about what obscenity is from the federal level. Now, we're going to talk about the First Amendment protection of religion. But there's two clauses in the First Amendment that pertain to the freedom of religion. One is going to be the establishment clause and the other is the free exercise of religion clause. The establishment clause denies the government any power to establish a single state religion or religious practice. This is termed the wall of separation. I'm going to get to that a little bit. The free exercise of religion clause, this protects individual rights, your individual decision to express your religion without government interference. Okay. So when interpreting these clauses, the Supreme Court is always influenced more often than not influenced by the political and electoral contexts the ground. Of course. Context gives meaning, society gives meaning, culture gives meaning to how the court is going to interpret these. So let me expound on that. So when the court is handling cases on the establishment clause or the free exercise clause, they are upholding this doctrine called the separation of church and state. Okay. And this doctrine really comes from a metaphor used from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church Association, 18 oh one. This is where Jefferson is outlining his philosophy that there should be this metaphorical wall that separates government from religious activity. Put it another way, Thomas Jefferson was advocating that the whole purpose of government should be secular, non religious. This has really been the test of the test of the land until 1971, when the court doubles down on this and tries to give Thomas Jefferson's words or metaphor a little bit more legal criterion, and this comes to be called the Lemon test, which was established in Kurtzman versus Lemon 1971, your text talks about this particular test as the test of neutrality. The Supreme Court is engaging with states and telling states that the statutes being passed on the ground or their policies on the ground that are dictating or regulating any kind of religious expression or practice thereof, really needs to strive for neutrality, meaning government neutrality. And this is what the Lemon test outlines. To test that particular doctrine, there are three pillars of this particular doctrine. The first pillar is that any state statute or policy in question must have a secular legislative purpose. The example given here is like remedial education, K through 12, primary education. Okay. It should be secular and purpose. It should not entangle religious activity. Second, is that the statutes primary effect, its primary impact must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. The policy cannot punish nor privilege a particular religious practice, denomination or expression. Lastly, the statute cannot foster what the court has honed in on defined as an excessive government entanglement with religion. And this particular one is a little more vague because then the court has to come back and define or the parties filing case have to define what does excessive entanglement mean? If any of these conditions are found to be violated, then the policy fails the neutrality test. And I would encourage you to read up more on that section in your textbook that discusses neutrality. We're going to pivot now from the first amendment, and we're going to pivot to the second batch of amendments that I want to talk about and what judicial interpretation means for the rights of criminal defendants. The Bill of Rights was carefully crafted to provide barriers against arbitrary punishment. So there's barriers between the state and the citizen here. And furthermore, the barriers are to protect against arbitrary law enforcement and abuse. The amendments that we're going to be considering today is the fourth, fifth, six, and eighth amendments. They do a lot of the work to protect the rights of criminal defendants. These amendments are focused on rights that they criminally accused. They were the last to be incorporated under the 14th Amendment, but they apply to all levels of government. Your textbook has a great figure. I think it's figure 5.3 showing you the different stages of the American criminal justice system. And then the amendment and the bill of rights that actually apply to that specific stage of the American criminal justice system. And that's something to keep in mind and study as you are going through these slides. So we know that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court has also interpreted something called the exclusionary rule in that. The Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment gives you your protection to right to counsel and jury trials, and the eighth Amendment is interpretation of death penalty that fall under cruel unusual punishment. So this particular table is going to be an important one for you to study because the columns here of the Supreme Court cases are going to be really important to know. You need to know the Supreme Court name. You need to know what the Supreme Court ruled under that case. The one that you probably don't need to spend a whole lot of time on is double jeopardy, the Benton versus Maryland. But all these other Supreme Court cases have a print role to play in understanding how judicial interpretation expands the rights of the criminal defendants. This is happening mostly in the 1960s and 70s. This is where a theme of privacy comes onto the legal scene. This is where the Supreme Court by expanding the rights of the accused, they are actually doing it under the guise of privacy, expanding the scope of privacy and expected privacy that defendants are entitled to. That is an important theme to hold onto, given where this lecture ends on topics of privacy. Okay. So when we're dealing with the Fourth Amendment, we need to think about the language of the Fourth Amendment that people are expected to be secure in their home and their papers, their personal effects. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy, but they are also not subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, and that term for the Court unreasonable is really the workhorse here. Something else to think about when we're talking about the Fourth Amendment and how the Court gives judicial interpretation to this right, The Court is always invited to consider the Fourth Amendment protections and violations thereof, when it comes to limiting police technology. The evolution of technology really does challenge the Fourth Amendment in ways that the Framers could not conceive. So in 1967, this is a really important year because the court starts expanding this domain of privacy and limiting technology around the idea of warrantless searches. So for about 40 years with the advent of the telephone, police departments had been tapping into landlines of suspected criminals, especially in the era of the DOJ crackdown on organized crime. And there was a lot of eavesdropping and wire tapping that was not sanctioned by a warrant. And it takes until 1967, believe it or not before the Court really kind of starts tamping this down. And that's the catch the United States. This Supreme Court decision basically outlines a sphere of privacy in the public domain when we're talking about telephones. And back in the day we had public telephones. They were public land lines, essentially. And to use a public land line, you would have a phone booth. And this phone booth was designed to keep that conversation on a public line out in public on a public telephone, private. And the Supreme Court agreed that the telephone booth is a constitutional area because the facts of the case is that the police could not tap a phone booth, but they were putting listening devices outside a particular phone booth, trying to collect evidence on somebody a suspect that they were watching. And the Supreme Court says you can't put listening devices outside of a phone booth in a public domain because that's a const constitutionally protected area. Okay. Your textbook talks about how the Cats case provides the precedent for other Supreme Court cases that dealt with mobile devices, our smartphones, any kind of device now that transmits information is subjected to Fourth Amendment protections. So you will want to pay attention to that particular paragraph that talks about how the Court has been relied on this case to make more modern contemporary opinions from the Court delving into and protecting. One. Something else that we need to understand and attached to the Fourth Amendment is the role of evidence in trial, and that the State has a high bar to follow safeguard protocols when investigating and acquiring evidence to enter into court. And so the Court incorporated in Mapp versus Ohio a concept of the exclusionary rule. Now, the Fourth Amendment doesn't talk about the exclusionary rule. This is a protection that is devised by judicial interpretation. And it basically says that no improperly obtained evidence can be admitted into trial. To put it another way, evidence that is obtained illegally or without a proper warrant cannot be admitted to trial. And so there are specific exceptions to this. And there are six specific circumstances in which a war is not necessary for police to get. And they involve things such as during an active arrest, when there's a hot pursuit, there's giving Chase to suspect. Others are when evidence needs to be preserved, evidence or paraphernalia in plain view. Places outside of the home that warrant low merit protection, which would be your car. So there are specific circumstances in which the State does not need a warrant in order to secure evidence. And if evidence is secured in those circumstances, it does not is not subjected to the exclusionary rule. Okay. We're going to talk about the Fifth Amendment. And on this particular supreme I'm sorry, on this particular slide, you're going to be familiar with the oranda versus Arizona 1966 case. This is where we get the Miranda rule. Okay. So there had been several decades of documented well documented abuses in law enforcement. And this triggers the court to move to incorporate the Fifth Amendment to the states. Okay. And so this culminates in the 1966 Supreme Court case where the Court aimed to protect suspects from self incrimination under duress or forced self incrimination, forced confessions in that critical time between an arrest and the arraignment. And the arrest is being taken into custody. The arraignment is when you go before a judge and there could be several hours or several days in between that time period and what was happening to, you know, suspects that they were being subjected to abuse. Stress, duress and police were eliciting false confessions during this time period. And so the Miranda rule is basically a rule that combines your fifth and sixth amendments into one declarative statement that the police have to read you when they are taking you into custody. And there is a copy of this in pro text, but this is the Miranda rule that you are going to be familiar with in any way shape or form that starts off with, you know, you're being you're being informed that you're under arrest and that you have the right to remain silent. You're not required to say anything at the time of answering questions. You have the right to talk to a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you. That's your Sixth Amendment protection, by the way, okay? There is a copy of this Miranda warning in your textbook, under the Fifth Amendment paragraph. Okay? So you can take a look at that with greater detail. All right. But this is where the Miranda rule comes from. It comes from the Fifth Amendment. It comes from Miranda versus Arizona and there had been attempts to try to scale this back, but the Court has been very stubborn in upholding this because it's such a critical protection for defendants, especially in that time when they've been taken into custody before rating. So your Sixth Amendment protections here guarantee a right to counsel and impartial jury. But right here, the Supreme Court case Gedeon versus Wainwright, which is on that table, a few slides back in 1963, that case was decided. And Guteon versus Wainwright is a very pivotal case that guarantees counsel, especially to those cannot afford counsel. An added component to the right to counsel is that defendants have a right to adequate counsel. There have been quite a few Supreme Court cases that get appealed or not even Supreme Court cases. There are lower court decisions in which convictions had been secured under conditions of counsel, poor representation, and defendants have won appeals based on proving that their attorney was really lousy. That's what's meant by a right to adequate counsel. You have a right to competent counsel, and if you have lousy representation, that's grounds for appeal. There's quite a few cases that get turned over because of that right there. Okay. Now we need to talk about the Eighth Amendment here. When we're talking about the Eighth Amendment, we're talking about really it's become dubbed the death penalty amendment. But the eighth Amendment focuses on excesses and cruel and unusual. Okay. And both of these are targeted in the eighth Amendment. These have come under a great deal of reassessment lately, but the amendment leaves ample room for discretion by judges setting bails and sent sentences. This is really quite a vague amendment. And the Supreme Court has not taken cases on on the death excuse me, the death penalty to make a value judgment about the morality of the death penalty? But what the Supreme Court does is it limits the application and its interpretation to death penalty cases because that's where the scope of contention really lies. And the Supreme Court also focuses on how the states administer the death penalty, not whether or not it's moral or not, but do the states administer capital punishment? In a way that does not violate rights save for taking the life of a convicted felon. You have a couple of Supreme Court cases here that really changes the trajectory of how public opinion sees the death penalty. That's the Firman versus Georgia case in 1972, and then the Greg versus Georgia case in 1976, which actually comes out and says that the death penalty doesn't really constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is wild considering that in the 1990s, public opinion really shifts on the death penalty. More public opinion is actually against the death penalty now and because it's against the death penalty now, we've actually seen fewer executions. Okay. So you want to take a look at Freman versus Georgia particularly because that is a Supreme Court case that uses quantitative data to show how states were using racial bias to disproportionately punish black defendants versus white defendants or administered the death penalty to more black defendants, the white defendants for the same crime. And this really spurred a flurry of states racing to re examine their death penalty laws and the mechanisms by which they carry it out, which then ultimately leads to that second case in Georgia where the Supreme Court comes back out and says that it doesn't really constitute arises up to the level of cruel and unusual punishment, right? So you want to take a look at. There's a couple of paragraphs that fill in the facts of the case that you will benefit from reading on that, okay? So we're going to end with this idea of privacy. The idea of privacy in this nation is that the right to privacy is stated nowhere in the Constitution. This is one of the most contentious and unsettled topics when it comes to our civil liberties. And the right to privacy, unlike others not being stated in the Constitution, the Court has interpreted its application or the suggestion that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy really from only three amendments. And that's the Ninth Amendment, the Third Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment. So the Supreme Court justices, liberals and conservative justices, have pointed to these amendments saying that there is a suggestion that privacy is paramount to citizens and a democratic society. So therefore, through judicial interpretation, the courts really have expanded this definition of a protected right to privacy. But that gets muddled in the digital age. Technology always stresses our civil liberties and definitely stresses this idea of what privacy means. Privacy and the digital era means something completely different now than it did before the Internet. There's this tension between the idea of information privacy and the reality that Americans voluntarily share so many personal and private details about their lives on the Internet. How do you walk this line and define protections here when so many people are willingly sharing personal details about themselves. So who has access to your data, right? That's kind of how we have reinterpreted what privacy means in the digital age. But here's the paradox. There's really only one paramount federal statute that was passed in 1986 to govern and regulate how technology really I guess treats your digital footprint, your information. And what this particular law does is it outlined the conditions or even gave a warning that the proliferation of technology and just the explosion of online consumers. It's going to lead to concerns about what third parties can do with your information. Because in the marketplace in the United States, and especially with so many digital devices now registered to a single person is what do the third party corporate carriers? What do they do to regulate your privacy? What do they have access to in your personal digital footprint? All of your data and your meta data is stored on servers. You don't own that data. The third party owns that data. This is the biggest problem with regard to protecting our information privacy is that the federal and state laws have trouble keeping up with changing technology as well. Our era is changing so fast that our laws can't keep up. There's another zone of privacy here. This has been dubbed bedroom politics because all of these zones of privacy and these laws have really been focusing on childbearing choices. These choices come down to really the notions of relations between consenting adults, the legality and the privacy of contraception. Even the idea of state versus individual rights, what interests do the state have to entangle themselves with a person's right to privacy when it comes down to childbearing. This is where we get into Griswold versus Connecticut is a Supreme Court case that actually deals with contraception. This comes from 1965 and Griswold versus Connecticut. That was actually a married couple that were seeking out contraception. They were a married couple seeking contraception by Connecticut. A law from the 1870s outlawed or prohibited contraception. The couple they were found and cited in violation of the law. So they sued. And this is where the Court actually rules in their favor, and the court comes out and says that Americans have a guaranteed right that are not limited specifically those that are identified in the Constitution. What were they say They were saying privacy is not explicitly stated in the bill of rights, but that doesn't mean that Americans don't have the right to privacy. That's what they were saying there. This leads to a couple of other cases in 1972, dealing with reproductive freedoms. And that's instat versus Baird, and you know the case Rob Wade. This gives support to the feminist movement in the 1970s and it's a win for reproductive freedom groups to pursue abortion rights at the state level under the guise of bodily privacy. And it's because that's how the Court came at this interpretation of privacy. The Court didn't weigh in on the morality of abortion didn't weigh in on reproductive freedom, but it does weigh in on bodily privacy. This is where in Roe V Wade, they set set a trimester standard, and the court did its best to try to outline a timeline in which the state governing bodies have a vested interest in what's called viable life outside of the womb. The Supreme Court was using privacy saying, up until viability, up until when a viable fetus can exist outside of a womb, the State does not have a vested interest in regulating that body. They called it a zone of privacy. And that was the law of the land for the longest time until 2022, with the Dobbs versus Jackson case, rolls back the president of Roe V Wade, and that decision, it's impact is going to have implications for the interpretation of personal privacy. We are now in flux. We don't have any clear demarcations or clear ideas of what privacy means anymore. It's simply because the Constitution does not make any statement of privacy anywhere in the bill of rights nor in the body of it, and that is creating this really murky era we're in where the federal governments withdrawing its role in outlining specific areas in which persons have privacy over an autonomy over their own bodies and over a lot of their choices. Privacy is kind of a fraught beast right now. It's influx. There's a lot of muddled area and a lot of muddle terrain, and that's where we have to leave it at this point in time. Your textbook offers a little bit of insight to it, but there's not really any clear answers up until this point. Thank you for joining me today on Chapter five. Read the chapter a little more deeply for some extra nuance. I appreciate you all and take care. Okay.