But the scenario that I have for you is: think of a situation where perhaps, say, there was an illegal car rally that was taking place, and somebody was live streaming it and people were sharing off that live stream. And during that car rally, which ended up being criminal because it occurred during lockdown, a poor person gets crushed between two cars, and the police end up getting their car bottled. Now, at that stage the person sharing, perhaps the person live streaming, may not actually realise that the event that they are sharing or live streaming has become an objectionable event. Now, the law itself and the Minister had expressed and read out to me that the person is committing an offence if they are "knowing or have reasonable cause to believe that the content is objectionable;"—well, they may not know that at the time—but, more importantly, the Minister said "and", as opposed to section 132C(1)(b)(ii) "with the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts or acts of terrorism." So, when we have an objectionable event, such as a crime taking place, the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts could be easily obtained in the scenario that I just gave you, because if we're doing loss of traction burnouts or something like that, that is a criminal event, and therefore it becomes a criminal act. So it actually meets the criteria. And the select committee themselves have made the point that the intent is really hard to ascertain and describe. So I think that there's a flaw there, and I think that it actually opens up an area for innocent people to be prosecuted. So we do have these major concerns about what this means.