So, Aswini, I wanna give you an opportunity to talk about this from-- I mean, David's talked about what's, what's happened with the courts and the legal response, and, and I'm interested in your take on it in terms of the moral duties and responsibilities on either side, and how can we reconcile the duty to protect some citizens versus the freedom to protest and the moral obligation protesters bear with respect to other oppressed people?

So I sort of agree with absolutely everything David said, and I think the narrative that David gives us really sort of challenges this idea of everything is ticking along pretty well, and then there are these rabble-rousers disrupting peaceful relations.

And so I think absolutely, even if you have a duty to protest, there are going to be constraints on how you discharge that duty, and you'll always have a duty to respect the rights and interests of others.

And so one thing that this tells in favor of, if you're a protester, is that you try to exhaust other ways of effecting political change or political expression before you resort to disruptive protest.

I will say that I think in some cases, protest seems to be the only way to express appropriate indignation and outrage.

So for example, when there's a brutal police killing, actually, it seems to me appropriate that there is a large demonstration as opposed to a sort of letter-writing campaign, right? So there's something inherently expressive about protest, which might mean that it's really the only appropriate way to respond to a certain injustice or event.

But I think as you noted earlier, there's this inherent tension with disruptive protests.

So I foresee many more flashpoints around protest and dissent in the future.