improper because it was sort of almost threatening in a veiled sort of way. what did you make of that statement? >> it was implicit threat with that statement. and that's commonly a tactic used by police departments. oftentimes, the false option is either you want the police and will support and endure whatever it is the police bring forward or you'll have no police protection. that's really -- that is the underlying threat that exists. not only in this particular case, but in other cases as well. >> nick, i really wanted to have you here today, because this is one of those issues that isn't ideological. it isn't partisan. it's an issue for any american that understands the police are the arm -- they are the armed arm of the state. this whole question of what the first amendment means. i want to read you from sally jenkins in the washington post.