 He says it's regrettable, and he says it's because of the perpetrator's high positions it was even more dangerous. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the court's failure to say so. He says if a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. This is not a message that the court should send. And so essentially, if a corporation can act as a third-party agent on behalf of the government, then it's censorship.