It's incorrect.
I would say the problem is that the courts are going to look at the decision to use this particular language that omits the language from Whatcott that I cited in my testimony and say that it's clearly an intentional decision, that you made the decision, seeing what was written in Whatcott, to leave this out.
The most ominous possibility here is what's going on behind the scenes, that the government is actually seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court in due course that would lower the threshold to what they're putting forward in this bill. They're saying that you said that in 2013, and if you uphold what we wrote into this bill, which intentionally left out some of the language that Justice Rothstein—since retired from the court, of course—included in that judgment, you will then say that this is a reasonable limitation on the freedom of speech. I think that's particularly dangerous.