Campaign Finance

Why Isn't Hillary: The Movie Worth As Much As Nicole Richie's Shit?

|

Last week Matt Welch and Jesse Walker noted the egregious New York Times editorial condemning the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Times did not merely disagree with the Court's analysis; it asserted that the five justices in the majority did not really believe their own arguments. Rather, "the court's conservative majority," while "disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment," had "distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections." The Washington Post used similar language, saying the justices had seized on the case before them as a "pretext" to overturn a precedent they disliked "under the false flag of free speech." Both papers also predictably charged the majority with forsaking judicial restraint and stare decisis, as if those principles require the Court to uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws and stubbornly stick to bad precedents, no matter how much damage they cause. But if anyone has let his prejudices trump his principles, the editorialists at the nation's leading papers have, along with other journalistic proponents of protecting democracy from freedom of speech.

Jesse Walker alluded to the inconsistency between believing that you deserve full First Amendment protection, even though your work is sponsored by a big corporation, while less-credentialed speakers must risk fines or jail when they dare to express their views, simply because their corporation is not officially recognized as part of the media. Here's another striking example of cognitive dissonance at the Times: The day before the Times argued that Americans organized as corporations are not protected by the First Amendment, it condemned the Federal Communications Commission's rules against broadcast "indecency":

The F.C.C.'s indecency policy is hopelessly vague….The same epithet that the commission regards as indecent when Cher says it on an awards show may not be considered indecent when showing the movie "Saving Private Ryan." Broadcasters have no way of knowing in advance what sort of content will upset the F.C.C.'s indecency police — and possibly subject them to enormous financial penalties. When the government punishes speech with vague rules, it has a chilling effect on expression of all kinds. Speakers, unclear on where the lines are, and fearing sanctions, have a strong incentive to avoid engaging in speech that is legally protected.

I happen to agree with the Times about the FCC's regulations. But how can the same news organization that sees a First Amendment problem with fining Fox (like the Times, owned by a corporation!) for airing celebrities' expletives during music award shows not see a First Amendment problem with fining or imprisoning political activists for distributing a documentary because it makes a politician look bad too close to an election? How can it understand the chilling effect caused by the FCC's vague regulations but not understand the chilling effect caused by the FEC's vague regulations? As hard as it may be to predict when a stray shit or fuck can land you in legal trouble, it was at least as hard to predict when a political message would be deemed a forbidden "electioneering communication." And you don't have to be Robert Bork to suggest that a political documentary is closer than Cher's cursing to the center of what the First Amendment was supposed to protect.

Advertisement

NEXT: Overpaying for Green Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But how can the same news organization that sees a First Amendment problem with fining Fox (like the Times, owned by a corporation!) for airing celebrities’ expletives during music award shows not see a First Amendment problem with fining or imprisoning political activists for distributing a documentary because it makes a politician look bad too close to an election? How can it understand the chilling effect caused by the FCC’s vague regulations but not understand the chilling effect caused by the FEC’s vague regulations?

    If you have to ask, then you are obviously not smart enough to understand the Times’ very complex, but crystal clear, logic on this issue.

    Now, stop talking and do as your masters say.

  2. The Times is consistent.

    They aren’t running an already well-positioned competitor in the Nicole Richie’s “shit” business, so they don’t stump for laws barring entry into it. They are well-positioned electioneers, and they want to stay that way, so the editorials write themselves, a “chill” here, a “false flag” there.

    They don’t mean any of it. They just say it.

    1. The Times irons Nicole Richie’s Shit/

  3. “But how can the same news organization that sees a First Amendment problem with fining Fox (like the Times, owned by a corporation!) for airing celebrities’ expletives during music award shows not see a First Amendment problem with fining or imprisoning political activists for distributing a documentary because it makes a politician look bad too close to an election?”

    Because it is a living breathing doucment that is how. The 1st Amendment was primarily designed to protect political speech when it was drafted in the 18th Century. Circumstances of now changed. Now political speech is a huge problem and corrupts elections because it is funded by rich interests. Unfettered political speech now allows monied interests to drown out the views of everyone else. At the same time, freedom of artistic expression is much more valued than it was in the 1790s. So the Amendment doesn’t mean the same thing now. It doesn’t protect political speech and protects artistic speech. The Constitution changes with the times and with the mores of the population. It doesn’t really mean anything in particular. It only means what we decide is best.

    Now of course “we the people” don’t get to vote on or decide what the Consitution means. Don’t mistake a living document for being a democratic document. No, our betters like professors at elite law schools, writers at the New York Times, thinkers and concerned celebrities like Sean Penn decide what this “constitution” of ours means. And now it means that you have a Constitutional right to broadcast Paris Hilton giving her boyfriend a blow job at 9 am on a Saturday morning on broadcast TV. But it doesn’t mean you have a right to make a political documentary too close to an election. And how dare any of your philistines question the wisdom of your betters in deciding that.

  4. The obvious, easy explanation is Red Team/Blue Team.

    1. It’s the narrative, stupid!

  5. less-credentialed speakers must risk fines or jail when they dare to express their views, simply because their corporation is not officially recognized as part of the media

    What I think we need to explain to people who support corporate speech restrictions with a news media exemption is that it is difficult to define who the media is, and therefore the line will inevitably be arbitrary. Some people say law is all about drawing fine distinctions. But when it comes to basic rights and freedoms, “fine” (read: arbitrary) distinctions should not be acceptable.

    I think two examples should illustrate this.

    First: in-flight magazines. Should they be able to endorse political candidates? The magazine is just a tiny appendage of a large commercial corporation, but does that mean it does not get to express its opinions? If yes, why can’t other corporations do it? If not, how can you justify the distinction?

    Second: similarly, let’s say Starbucks decides to start a newspaper, and distribute it for free in all its outlets. Starbucks claims the newspaper is a genuine, editorially-independent news publication. It happens to endorse a candidate in a local race (who happens to oppose raising taxes on sugary drinks). Same question as above.

    1. Another example is the Mexican billionaire who bailed out the New York Times. Is he not free to have the New York times push whatever political positions he prefers? If not, how would that work? Would he be expected to grant the professional journalists who work for the Times complete discretion in the paper’s political views? Set up some kind of chinese fire wall between himself and his own newspaper?

      1. Exactly. Olbermann can rail about the court’s decision denying him a media exemption, while he works at a media outlet which is jointly owned by the world’s biggest company, and the world’s biggest software company
        (see: http://www.forbes.com/lists/20….._Rank.html).

        Ridiculous.

    2. No, no, no, you’re giving the wrong sort of examples. That won’t persuade people who already don’t like for-profit corporations.

      You need to explain that the government would have the right to censor faculty newsletters, school and university newspapers, union bulletins, Broadway programs, and all other sorts of publications put out by corporations who do other things but are on the Blue Team.

      1. Once they fond out about the show tunes ball gag order they will be begging like puppies for craps.

      2. the government has never had that right, nor sought it in any legislative form.

        1. the government has never had that right, nor sought it in any legislative form.

          Bullshit, according to the government. Read pages 26-33.

          The government very clearly stated that it could censor all of those, if they advocated a policy position or said to vote against a candidate, and came out of general treasury funds instead of a PAC. That specifically included union newsletters or books.

        2. the government has never had that right, nor sought it in any legislative form.

          The government claimed that it had that right, under the theory it used to support BCRA. Even if BCRA has a legislative exemption for certain media, the government damn sure claimed that it had the right to ban, it just didn’t choose to do so.

      3. All you need to explain to them is that the 1st Amendment has no exception written into it for corporations. None. Zippo. Nada.

        Seriously. I’ve had good luck with explaining that the 1st has no exceptions for who is speaking. Progies seem to get that, once it’s explained to them in plain terms.

        Keep in mind that your average lefty is getting their talking points from the usual suspects of shouting heads and the NYT/WaPo duopoly of ignorance and haven’t devoted much thought to it at all. All they hear are “corporations are going to buy the elections!” and they stop processing. Such is life with one-party media rule.

        1. what makes me laugh is that NPR/NYTimes ditto-heads think they’re so much more intellectually sophisticated than Rush Limabugh/Fox ditto-heads, yet they’re essentially the same.

    3. for the law in question – your examples aren’t valid or at issue with regards to the Campaign Reform Act that was overturned by the supreme court.

      The section overturned, and the regulation was intended to apply to “broadcast, cable and satellite”, with the aim of targeting “a virtual torrent of televised election-related ads”.

      1. Yet it was used against a documentary movie, not a 30-second spot on nbc primetime

        1. The section overturned, and the regulation was intended to apply to “broadcast, cable and satellite”, with the aim of targeting “a virtual torrent of televised election-related ads”.

          I guess you didn’t follow the case. The Deputy Solicitor General said in oral argument that the federal government is constitutionally permitted to censor books and other printed materials. I wasn’t talking strictly about the statutory provision in question, rather the constitutional theory underlying it.

          1. Did the Deputy SG cite why he thought the government had the authority to censor printed materials? My pocket constitution says he’s full of (Nicole Ritchie’s) shit.

      2. for the law in question – your examples aren’t valid or at issue with regards to the Campaign Reform Act that was overturned by the supreme court.

        Again, read the oral argument.

        They damn well do claim that it applies to books and newsletters if paid for by unions.

        Page 36:

        MR. STEWART: Well, I — we would certainly take the position that if the labor union used its treasury funds to pay an author to produce a book that would constitute express advocacy, that that —

        JUSTICE SOUTER: And the book was then taken over as a commercial venture by Random House?

        MR. STEWART: The labor union’s conduct would be prohibited.

      3. for the law in question – your examples aren’t valid or at issue with regards to the Campaign Reform Act that was overturned by the supreme court.

        That has nothing to do with what the proper reading of the Constitution is. The only theory that the government could come up with to defend the law was one that allowed to ban books and newsletters as well.

        It’s no defense to claim that the law didn’t do every bad thing that the government claims that it must be able to do under the same theory.

  6. As hard as it may be to predict when a stray shit or fuck can land you in legal trouble…

    Taken as verbs, I can tell you from experience that either of those two things done in booth at a Denny’s at 2:30 in the morning will definitely put you in a legal bind.

    1. Cleveland Steamer in your Moons Over My Hammy?

      1. I purposely put the “either of” in there to try to head off comments like that. Stupid of me, knowing the H&R crowd.

  7. Mr. Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ came out in June 2004. It certainly wasn’t aimed at helping Bush later in November.

    I guess the ‘Hillary: the Movie’ should have titled it ‘The Rose’ and thrown in a Bette Midler song or two and claimed it was about a certain law firm.

    1. Subplot: add some relative with an unspecified but obviously intense relationship to the protagonist and call it a “Foster family.”

      1. Just, remember, in the study,
        Spilled upon the intern’s clothes,
        Lies the seed, dried on the blue dress,
        That nails the Prez, the Rose-y nose.

    2. If you are interested in facts, then understand that the rule (now overturned) placed limits on corporate-funded electioneering within 30 (and in some cases 60) days of an election.

      All corporations have the right to electioneer through segregated funds at any time – and are not subject to any restrictions whatsoever.

      All corporations (before the ruling) could advertise for or against any candidate at any time, using its teasurey funds, outside the 30 day window.

      1. Yes please. Do give us some facts. We never get any of those around here.

        Wasn’t this about a convicted sex offender, selling drugs out of an unlicensed shoe-shine stand within 1000 feet of a school? I think I heard that on NPR.

        1. yes I believe you’re correct.

          appologies.

      2. Thank you for applying the Mishna-based excrutiating I-don’t-get-the-big-picture rule to American politics. Good God, I know I should have read Leviticus more often. I am morally incapable of figuring out what is right and wrong without a complete blue-print laid out from God above.

      3. Hey… I’m interested in facts! But upon further review, the first amendment still doesn’t say:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances… Except within 30 days of an Election, then Congress may abridge these freedoms however they deem most convenient.”

        So… Try again, sir.

        1. The 1st amendment doesn’t address government regulation of speech for public employees, but it is has been ruled constitutional to regulate their speech. The 1st amendment doesn’t stipulate that the free speech of military personnel should be regulated, but again, it has been deemed constitutional to do so. Similar restrictions on the free speech of school children and prisoners and foreigners exist, none of which are addressed in the first amendment.

          This to say – there is plenty of established law limiting the free speech of ‘groups of people’, even in accordance with 1st amendment principles.

          The corporate free speech restrictions, which are very limited, as I pointed out above, and were struck down last week by the present supreme court, had been upheld by the Supreme Court in other decisions in the past.

          What has changed obviously is the makeup of the court. This ruling is certainly influenced by the jurists who decided the merits of the case (a 5-4 ruling). Their decision is highly questionable.

          1. Military: On duty or off, or both?

            School: obviously, with free speech a kid could harangue to avoid a test for example or go on and on to disrupt class. Outside of school, most of us sided with Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

            Most of us rally to keep most offenders (at least those who are innocent and those who are non-violent) out of prison (see Radley Balko’s prodigious work). A for the rest, we champion their free speech, but promoting it isn’t the same. If we think they are wrongfully imprisoned, we’re the first to demand all rights. And foreigners enjoy every speech right we do. Give me a contrary example that Reason hasn’t been the first to denounce?

            So soft money is so beholden to you. To many of us soft money is the big poison of politics. It answers to no one.

          2. “They’re doing too!” That’s your argument?

            Those restrictions shouldn’t exist either, excepting the military restriction. You voluntarily surrender all sorts of rights when you enter service. This is just one of them.

          3. The 1st amendment doesn’t address government regulation of speech for public employees, but it is has been ruled constitutional to regulate their speech. The 1st amendment doesn’t stipulate that the free speech of military personnel should be regulated, but again, it has been deemed constitutional to do so. Similar restrictions on the free speech of school children and prisoners and foreigners exist, none of which are addressed in the first amendment.

            So, you think these laws should all be stricken down as well, joeschmo?

            Or are you in favor of giving Congress ever-expanding powers over regulation of speech?

      4. All corporations have the right to electioneer through segregated funds at any time – and are not subject to any restrictions whatsoever.

        Ah, yes, by setting up a PAC. A time-consuming and expensive process, with a lot of regulations. Most businesses don’t have PACs. Only the largest businesses do, because it’s so much trouble to set one up.

        So what you’re saying is that you prefer a situation where a really huge corporation that spends a lot every year on politics can produce what they like, but a small business or a nonprofit or a random group of people can’t, particularly if they don’t have so much money that they spend a lot every year?

        You’re the one on the side of big business. Invent regulations that only the biggest businesses can satisfy, and cut out the little guy.

  8. But how can the same news organization that sees a First Amendment problem with fining Fox (like the Times, owned by a corporation!) for airing celebrities’ expletives during music award shows not see a First Amendment problem with fining or imprisoning political activists for distributing a documentary because it makes a politician look bad too close to an election?

    …not just big river in Egypt…

  9. Why isn’t…Hillary…Nicole Richie’s Shit?

    Creative editing says…she is! Yay!

  10. Threadjack. Haven’t seen it here yet, thought it may be of iterest.
    Here is some political speech that needed to be heard to be believed. De De Deeee.

    1. Good God that man is stupid.

    2. that’s the most exciting thing going on around here lately…

    3. It’s refreshing to see Republicans and Democrats and theocrats (Robertson)agree on something for a change and it’s not surprising that it is bigotry. Do they let you pet them and rub their bellies after you feed them?

      At least the Dems won’t have to find coded racism in this gem of ignorance. And maybe, maybe someday, they’ll see that paternalism is racism that doesn’t need encoding.

    4. Oh come on. The guy was trying to make an analogy to explain what we all know: you get more of what you reward. Sure, it was a tin-eared analogy, but there’s no evidence the guy’s a bigot.

      1. Sorry, I disagree, he is an idiot bigot. He identified a people-Haitians. You are agreeing that ‘they’ are all one seething mass. I couldn’t disagree with you more, Jordan. Rather, they are living through a long history of institutional governmental overbearing. Would you invest in Haiti?

    5. Damn – now it all makes sense – kids come from edible handouts. All these years, I thought it was the stork.

      De de deeeee indeed!

    6. And to think, I used to love him as Detective Frank Pembleton on Homicide: Life on the Street.

  11. Nicole Richie’s Shit? Can’t say I’ve seen of it. Was it one of those Tyler Perry movies?

    1. It must have been!

    2. It’s the sequel to Ass.

  12. a First Amendment problem with fining or imprisoning political activists for distributing a documentary because it makes a politician look bad too close to an election?

    That was never the ostensible porpoise of CFR, and you know it.

    1. But for all intense and porpoises it was.

      1. Oar four awl intensive purposes, as mai wife ewes two say.

    2. …did NOT know it.

      1. Did SO!

        1. Nuh UH!

    3. Of course. It’s tough to find intellectual honesty out there these days.

      Although I can’t say there isn’t any to be found.

    4. I note the use of the word “ostensible.” And whether or not it was the “ostensible purpose”, it certainly had that power and effect.

    5. Tulpa, I don’t really care what the pretext “ostensible porpoise” of a law is. I care what it says, what it can be used for, and what actually is used for. Under all those tests, M-F violates the First Amendment.

  13. What the hell is up with the Neothink Society / Twelve Visions Party ad in the March Reason? It’s nine pages of some of the most nonsensical hucksterism I’ve ever read. I hope you were well paid.

    As Mrs. Jew said, “The Kochs ought to put up some more money so Reason can have a classier magazine.”

  14. “distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.”

    If the NYT actually believes this, a reverse reading of the sentence suggests that they’re criticizing the court for striking down a law specifically crafted to disadvantage Republican politicians and silence their supporters. What a bunch of partisan sleazebags.

    1. I agree, the NYT is overreaching on that point to be sure.

    2. If you read it within its context,

      “With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.”

      Overall, on that point, the editorial is certainly coming across as anti-republican.

    3. Not only that, but it would appear the statement is based on an underlying (unfounded and flawed) presumption that only Republicans have lots of money and corporate sponsorship. What, there are no corporations runs by Dems? There are no wealthy Dems who are politically active? How does freeing up the ability of associations to comment during elections benefit only Republicans?

      The NYT editorial staff has lost their minds. And long ago lost any credibility.

  15. The issues are completely unrelated and not at all logically, philosophically or ideologically tied to one another, except at a very superficial level (free speech related). Therefore there is no inconsistency on the part of the NYT.

    1. In Kokomo, everyone agrees with you.

  16. The inconsistency on the part of the NYT is that they themselves are a corporation that claims it has First Amendment rights (ie, freedom of the press) while simultaneously arguing that corporations are ineligible for other First Amendment rights (freedom of speech).

    1. The Citizens opinion covered that issue. It states that the M-F rule could esaily cover media coporations as written. There was no meaningful distinction between them and a non-mdeia corporation.

      It also slammed the door hard on Austin: “it wasn’t well reasoned.”

      Awesome.

    2. It is not an inconsistency, but a fact. The NYT is a media company.

      If your assertion is that ever was a time when corporations were “ineligible for other First Amendment rights (freedom of speech)”, then I would grant that the NYT may be engaging in hypocrisy. But since you have no facts to support it, I can’t.

      1. …and your point therefore is?

        1. the point is there is no hypocrisy on the part of the NYT with regard to their editorials

          1. you are an expert on technicalities. Fuck! I forgot to order kosher law. Hence, I haven’t a fuck what you’re talking about.

            It seems that recently there was a change perpetrated and the NYT called foul. That’s what some of us are saying. But go along with your anal rule book.

            And I don’t have a problem with it, if you keep it to yourself and others that willing apply it to your piety.

            Just don’t project it, which is what your game is here. You are a dishonest person and a discredit to honest practice of Judaism.

          2. that there is some technical term called ‘media’.

        2. It has a point? I thought it was just an annoying twerp who was here to play Blue Team Captain Obvious.

      2. Campaign ads are media. Therefore any company which produces a campaign ad is a media company.

      3. Define “media company”, joeschmo.

        And explain why any corporation that publishes a newspaper or magazine, or produces radio or TV shows or movies, is or isn’t a media corporation just because it happens to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of another corporation.

  17. Make all Americans rich, including the poor!

    The Zon have spoken.

  18. Considering that every single employed American either works for a corporation or owns one, it is hard to argue that corporations are somehow evil or threatening to Democracy. The Dems have big labor in their corner and politicians like Carl Levin who engineers tremendous favors for GM while his wife works as a lobbyist for that company. Puhleese!

    1. Leaving aside contractors and government employees, note that not every business is a corporation. Most of them aren’t, in fact.

      1. Stats? Nearly ever small business I’ve dealt with is a corporation or LLC, except for a few partnerships (usually limited liability, so in the same realm as corporations) for professional organizations and real estate. There are very few sole proprietors out there.

    2. “The Dems have big labor in their corner and politicians like Carl Levin who engineers tremendous favors for GM while his wife works as a lobbyist for that company.”

      Are you suggesting that the ‘Dems’ are somehow corrupted and corrupting because Carl Levin engineers tremendous favors for a company (GM) and his wife is a lobbyist for that company?

      How is that possible? Since every american works for or owns a company, there can’t be evil or anti-democratic corruption on the part of (the company) GM – can there?

      1. Maybe, because GM received taxpayer money? Does every American company receive funds from taxpayers?

        Hint: No.

        Hint: You’re not much of a libertarian thinker, are you? If you have something to enlighten me as a troll, please, go ahead. I’m tired.

        1. “You’re not much of a libertarian thinker, are you?”

          im not an ideologue, but do adopt a libertarian position on many issues

          1. Identifying graft doesn’t make me an ideologue either.

          2. This is the great problem with “libertarians.” Many from both sides can “adopt” our position on many issues, and still be completely wingnut ideologues on the far fringes of their party.

            We collect the small-government believers from the Repubs. and the liberal social group from the left.

            So its not much to say you “adopt” our positions. We share with both parties. Being a Republican who believes in small government but tight social control or a Democrat who believes in free speech and reduced drug laws but favors a monsterous government that controls every aspect of economic life does not a Libertarian make.

            1. And the purity argument starts yet again…

              “I’m a minarchist.”

              “That’s not good enough!”

              Jesus tapdancing Christ.

  19. More liberal support for free speech:

    A national coalition of women’s groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

    “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year — an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.

    The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

    CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was “appropriate for air.”

    The ad — paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family — is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow’s pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.” After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

    Yes, I know a boycott is not the same thing as government coercion, but it does speak to the typical liberal attitudes regarding the mark-up price of ideas.

    1. They must not feel very secure in the validity of their viewpoint if all they have to offer is being a petty censor.

      To: NOW. Money talks. Bullshit walks. Buy your own fucking Super Bowl ad if it’s so troubling to you.

      1. Haha, silly JW, women don’t have any money! And I doubt their husbands will buy Super Bowl ad time.

  20. You just know that if Obama ever gets to appoint anybody to the Supreme Court, the NYT will be printing editorials saying “stare decisis? What’s that? Overturn Citizens United and Heller right now, damn it!”

  21. “Broadcasters have no way of knowing in advance what sort of content will upset the F.C.C.’s indecency police”

    If only we had a Minister of Information like all the other wonderful Modern Industrialized Nations?.

  22. Wow, VERY good question dude!

    RT
    http://www.online-privacy.int.tc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.