Yeah. I was thinking it might be something like this, which, I mean, it's a somewhat plausible argument if there's some additional context. On its own though, i

Yeah. I was thinking it might be something like this, which, I mean, it's a somewhat plausible argument if there's some additional context. On its own though, it seems like a bit of a stretch, and I am inclined to think that if you have to stretch that far for something, constitutionally protected rights should prevail. They shouldn't be curtailed on the grounds that somebody's words merely could be interpreted a certain way without at least some evidence that they are either meant to be, and/or will be. I'm sure part of the argument is that he was expressing his opinion while being interviewed as "The CEO of Amazon", not merely being the CEO at the same time as he made the remarks, but still... Having done a bit of reading it seems the judge might not be totally impartial, so that might explain it. So it might just get overturned at a higher court anyway.