Twitter Bans Milo Yiannopoulos, Initiates Major Internet Free Speech War

#FreeMilo just became a thing. Thanks, Twitter.

|

Milo
Nelvin C. Cepeda/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart tech editor and Trump-loving alt-right superstar, has been permanently banned from Twitter following accusations that he directed his followers to send abusive comments toward actress Leslie Jones. But while Yiannopoulos certainly straddles the line between being a free speech provocateur and merely a serial violator of Twitter's terms of service, these sanctions are likely to increase the perception that Twitter is no place for conservative voices.

Yiannopoulos's brawl with Jones stems from her role in the new Ghostbusters movie, which features an all-female cast. The movie has taken on a culture war context: opponents of the film think its characters were made female in order to appease the dictates of political correctness. Yiannopoulos gave the movie a negative review, and soon thereafter got into a public Twitter fight with Jones.

It's not clear whether Yiannopoulos actually told his followers to direct abusive tweets at Jones—he emphatically denies doing so. But Jones began receiving truly despicable tweets and images from Yiannopoulos's crowd, which prompted her to quit Twitter and even captured the attention of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who reached out to Jones and asked her to follow him so that they could communicate privately.

The end result was this: Yiannopoulos is permanently banned from Twitter.

"We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter," said the company in a statement. "We agree."

The decision came just minutes before Yiannopoulos was slated to give a speech at "Wake Up," a pro-Trump, pro-gay afterparty at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. The event was hosted by gay conservatives who believe the left is more anti-gay than the right, and that only Trump can confront the real threat to American gays, which isn't rightwing social policies: it's radical Islam.

I attended the event and witnessed Yiannopoulos's speech (he was preceded by anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller). He hit on many of the same themes he discussed yesterday at a rally near the convention–particularly, the need for gays to join the GOP.

In an interview with Reason, Yiannopoulos insisted that Twitter would rue the day it retaliated against him. "I'm doing lots of interviews tomorrow," he said.

He may well be right. The hashtag "Free Milo" began trending on Twitter within hours of his ban.

As I've pointed out many times, Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don't have to be fair. There's no universal human right to own a Twitter account.

But if Twitter wants to live up to its stated commitment to maintaining a public forum where provocative, controversial, and even occasionally rude or hurtful speech is tolerated, then it should consider restoring Yiannopoulos's profile. Giving his friends and followers a reason to reward his antics with even more attention seems like a worse result than simply letting him tweet his offensive remarks.

Related: Twitter targets trolls but winds up silencing conservatives

NEXT: Trump and the Capitol Hill GOP Elite Embrace Each Other's Mediocrity

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. I was informed (after duly noting that Twitter’s a pvt company and can do as it wishes, but then also pointing out that “bullying” IS, in fact, “protected speech” under the law, that

    “Nuh, uh, no it isn’t. And the Nazis in Skokie….” were somehow different, as is bullying. so there, nah.

    I responded that, “We’ll have to agree to disagree.”

    What a country full of pussies. Fuck you, American pussies. The rest of you – good on ya. The…three or four who haven’t succumbed.

    Fuck Twitter, Fuck Obama, Fuck Clinton, Fuck Trump, Fuck California, Fuck Romney, Fuck the EU, Fuck ISIS, and Fuck you. Well, not YOU, but you know who you are!

    1. What is Antarctica, chopped liver?

        1. Mmmm, penguin p?t?…

          1. Come now, Mr. Soave, just like Phillip Roth himself, knows perfectly well that there are certain obvious limits to the kind of “speech” that can be tolerated in a civil society such as ours. See, for example, the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

            http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

            In this regard, Reason editors, as well as members of the academic community at large, should vigorously condemn the outrageous “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated, liberal judge in that case, as well as the rulings of three Texas courts that have held that state’s online impersonation statute “unconstitutional,” again on “First Amendment” grounds.

            1. Stop posting this shit, fuckpig.

              1. In response to Mr. Falcon’s foul language, I will further point out that I don’t see any “First Amendment” protests about the renewed, and increasingly important, efforts underway in New York concerning this matter. See:

                http://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/b…..mendment/a

                As the explanatory material explains,

                “cyber bullies are creating online profiles and email addresses in order to victimize people… Victims are faced with emotional, mental, and financial damage. Predators assume their identity to post scandalous and inflammatory lies for friends and family of the victims as well as the general public to see. As social media and electronic dating becomes widespread it is increasingly easy to hurt people in this way.”

                As this language makes clear, “scandalous and inflammatory lies” are not protected “free speech” in this great nation. In fact, posting them online is “heinous behavior,” as the material goes on to say, that gets you seven years in prison. I don’t see Mr. Soave protesting about that. So he knows there are limits, and I ask him: is he willing to stand up for them by explicitly joining my anti-Troll campaign?

        2. Portnoy would have complained even more if it was frozen.

          1. +1 Red hot pulp.

    2. But unfuck Somalia!

    3. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..
      .Go This Website…. http://www.trends88.com

    4. I’m making over $14k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. check it out this website and go to tach tab for more details. This is what I do…. http://www.trends88.com

  2. Jack deserves a date with a woodchipper.

    If that means outdated laws protecting fundamental liberties need to be changed, then so be it. Think of the childrens!

  3. I’m waiting for the Gillespie article where he will call the Republicans hypocrites for complaining about this because it is by people he doesn’t like.

  4. This is the Twitter TOS: You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

    This is also the Twitter TOS: You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive.

    It is not clear that Milo posted any comments asking his followers to attack Leslie Jones, which would violate the first part of the TOS I posted. From what I’ve seen, the worst he said was that she was “illiterate”.

    His followers and others did call her an “ape” and other awful things, but I haven’t seen anything from him asking his followers to attack her like that. He did say “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS,” implying that the celebrity/well-known twitterer receiver of hate mail should not be surprised to get bad messages.

    This is where it stands. I am ignorant about whether woodchippers should be involved. I am stupid, and am just using a manual labor tool as an example, but I do not think any side should advocate for one.

    1. “His followers and others did call her an “ape” and other awful things,”

      Ok, I’m not familiar with Jones. Is she not human?

      1. Jones — Large black woman who stars in an Allstate commercial;

        If you replaced her with a white man in that commercial, the people currently going after Milo would be burning that person in effigy.

    2. He did say “EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS,”

      Maybe she thought he was Oprah?

  5. So shouldn’t Reason be against the destruction of the GOP? The Dems are already investigating the Reason Foundation and we know they hate libertarianism and will gladly crush Reason (as long as it isn’t a lefty rag) and with the Republicans gone libertarianism won’t be a useful stick to beat the Republicans with anymore…

    1. No, no. If we appease the SJWs, they’ll become our friends and invite us to their cocktail parties where we can explain to them how Soros and Welch are really two sides of the same coin.

      The same clipped, debased coin.

    2. According to John, Reason is a lefty rag.

      1. Political correctness couldn’t save Trotsky from his date with the icepick.

      2. From where he’s standing that makes perfect sense, as there isn’t much to the right of him.

    3. It was George W. Bush who appointed Douglas Shulman (a Democrat) as IRS Commissioner, and it was under Shulman’s watch that the IRS started targeting Tea Party groups.

      It’s not just the Dems who hate the libertarians and limited government groups.

      I wasn’t aware the “Dems are investigating the Reason Foundation” but did find http://beforeitsnews.com/liber…..41346.html which indicates that the witch hunt against big oil for supposedly inaccurate communications on “climate change” includes a subpoena for emails between Exxon and Reason Foundation and many other groups. I don’t see this as being an investigation of Reason, just legal abuse of Exxon by liberal and Democrat prosecutors who want Exxon to shut up regarding releasing any information on climate change that isn’t a-OK with liberals. And it’s our money those prosecutors are wasting and adding to the price of our Exxon gasoline.

      1. I don’t think the Reason Foundation was singled out for investigation like Cato, but Barbara Boxer did lie about the foundation and Bailey being anti-AGW shills.

        1. They’re investigating? Good. Now’s my chance to call Boxer a stupid twat and have it seen!

  6. Facts are facts: Germans love David Hasselhoff.

  7. So are Raimondo and Rockwell fapping to Erdogan’s purge? I mean he is hated by Neocons so he must be good, like Putin, Chavez and Trump, right? I know they dislike Shinzo Abe but National Review just attacked him for wanting to dispense with MacArthur’s constitution so he must be good now…

    1. Raimondo is a dolt who defines himself completely by who he hates. It’s like he never got over his teenage years.

      1. You should really consider who you are replying to here.

  8. Fuck Twitter for making anyone defend Milo Yiannopoulos.

    1. HA- Seriously, some folks make “principles over principals” harder than it ought to be.

    2. Why the hate for Milo?

      All he did was take “trolling” up a notch- and get some notoriety while doing so.

    3. Fuck you for letting an inanimate software system dictate who you defend.

      Full disclosure, I get endless joy out of watching milo go to work on the proggies.

  9. Milo is in fact a terrible troll and not much of a journalist. But banning him because Leslie Jones doesn’t understand the internet proves that Twitter staff doesn’t understand the internet either.

    People do not actually want to hear what their neighbors think. This is going to get a whole lot worse before (?) it gets better (?).

    1. Actually, Milo is a fabulous troll.

  10. Twitter is not a private company.

    1. It is a publicly traded company whose stock has been circling the drain for years. The company has never shown a profit. It has done nothing but burn through hundreds of millions of dollars of other people’s money. No wonder lefty journalists love it so much

    2. They are owned by the government? That’s news to me. Using the term publicly traded interchangeably with public is equivocation.

  11. People have been trying to find a way to monetize leftwing echo chambers for years. I wish Twitter luck.

    1. Without a gun to extract money in the form of taxes it doesn’t work too well. When Twitter finally runs out of money, leftists will want a government bailout.

  12. only Trump can confront the real threat to American gays

    Hitlery’s pink triangle reeducation camps.

    1. Colorist and shapest she is

  13. As I’ve pointed out many times, Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a Twitter account.

    Ha! Public Access, bitches! Or, something.

    1. AIM – The way “public accommodation” has been stretched beyond recognition, you’d think it could be used to beat up Twitter. At least, it could if Twitter were shutting down progressives/SJWs/etc.

      1. Twitter, where’s my gay wedding cake?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?

  14. YOU LEAVE MILO ALONE!

  15. You can disagree everything Milo says and his obnoxious approach to things, but damn he is the best person in the world at pissing off all of the right people and exposing all of the worst people as being the worst. Keep it up Milo.

    1. I love how he uses left wing tactics against them and overall just has a ZFG attitude towards proggies

    2. I disagree with a large amount of Milo’s political beliefs. But I’m serious when I say I think he’s doing great and absolutely crucial work for American freedom of speech. He’s making actual Americans look bad in contrast.

  16. Maybe now Twitter will finally die

  17. Google “Leslie jones white people” and you’ll be rewarded by a plethora of racist remarks about white people by Jones. Milo is plain spoken and that is simply intolerable to the left and, apparently to many conservatives and even libertarians nowadays. How sad!

    1. “Dear white “allies”: you have NOOO right to argue with @Lesdoggg about HER role in @Ghostbusters. Learn your place in these conversations.??

      Ah.

  18. Leslie Jones has said some pretty horrendous stuff on Twitter, too. But hers were in agreement with Twitter’s general politics, so no problem.

    1. Remember the Progressive stance: Black people can’t help themselves from being racist and homophobic. Unless they fail to vote Democrat.

  19. But Milo is gay so Twitter should love him. Oh wait, he’s also a conservative white guy so Twitter must hate him.

    1. Twitter celebrates diversity, as long as you agree with their terms

    2. WAB- Time to break out the intersectionality conversion chart.

  20. We’re committing to a more diverse Twitter

    https://blog.twitter.com/2015/
    we-re-committing-to-a-more-diverse-twitter

    But read the terms of agreement

  21. Not a big surprise given that, like so many other things in the world, Twitter is being slowly taken over by the Muslim terrorists (the indolent rich “princes” of Saudi Arabia).

  22. Huh, suddenly businesses exercising their freedom of association is a bad thing as soon as you’re in the group being refused service.

    1. Of course they have every right to do what they’re doing! They can ban anyone they want for whatever reason they want to. It’s just more proof of what lying, hypocritical, scummy gutter vermin the left are, along with their insane love for radical Muslim terrorists.

      1. I don’t see what’s hypocritical about wanting to get rid of a customer who is deliberately trying to drive away your other customers by making their experiences at your business increasingly unpleasant.

        1. Milo didn’t violate the TOS. More importantly, leftists engage in behavior that violates the TOS all of the time and are never banned. Only conservatives are banned. If Twitter wants to run their platform as a “you can say anything as long as we agree with you politics”, they certainly can. But that policy needs to be reflected in their terms of service.

          1. Forget it John, it’s Stormy-Town.

            He’s frequently dishonest and rarely worth responding to since I’ve been (mostly) lurking since 2010 ish.

        2. The internet is not anyone’s business.

    2. Well, the usual caveats were made. That said, if the GOP expanded public accommodation and discrimination law to cover themselves, it would be lulzy.

      1. If? Refusing service to evangelical Christians is already part of public accommodation and discrimination law.

        1. Yes, but I literally mean to the political right.

    3. They have the freedom to run their business as they like. What they don’t have the freedom to do is violate their own terms of service. If you read the terms of service, they say you can be banned for abusive behavior and it says nothing about politics. The terms of service say that the platform is politically neutral. The TOS is an agreement between Twitter and the users. Yes, Twitter can unilaterally change their TOS but they have to let their users know it.

      Twitter hasn’t done that. Twitter has imposed political discrimination on its users while keeping a TOS that claims otherwise. That is fraud. And is the kind of thing that gets IT company’s sued in class action suits quite often.

  23. Uh, it’s still okay to spread ISIS propaganda there, though, right? Asking for a friend.

    1. OK? I think it’s almost a requirement at this pont!

  24. Yiannopoulis is a bigot and a hack, and he deserved this entirely. He’s not a conservative, he’s an asshole. I post conservative perspectives on Twitter all the time and I’ve never had a problem. Anyone who takes this as evidence that Twitter isn’t for conservatives is a moron.

    1. Increasingly, it seems like being as big an asshole as possible to as many people as possible is the ultimate core principle of conservatism.

      1. As opposed to leftism. I mean nothing says polite discourse like shouting people down and disrupting political events for the crime of holding non leftist views.

        Is there any standard of behavior that you will apply to the Left Stormy? Even a low one?

    2. Bullshit. He’s not a bigot. Opposing radical Muslim terrorists doesn’t make you a bigot, it makes you a sane and normal individual.

      And other guys like Iowahawk, who is a fairly middle of the road (maybe slightly to the right) libertarian have gotten the banhammer dropped on them, and he is about as mild-mannered as inoffensive as it gets by Twitter standards. I have never seen him make a bigoted comment on there in my life. So you’re completely full of shit.

    3. Milo is the hero America needs.

      Nobody needs freedom of speech to say things everyone likes and agrees with.

  25. Why would anyone want to be on twitter in the first place

  26. #twentyfirstcenturyproblems

  27. Like jousting on the holodeck, except less fun

  28. As I’ve pointed out many times, Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a Twitter account.

    Absolutely.

    Strange how the above doesn’t apply to this–

    As I’ve pointed out many times, Christian Bakeries is a private company. It can set its own business policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a wedding cake.

    or this–

    As I’ve pointed out many times, Lamb of God Chapel and Reception Hall is a private company. It can set its own business policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a church wedding.

    or, let’s be honest and admit that public accomodations laws are wielded like an ax against anything the SJWs and their countless enablers decree and that this type of thing–

    As I’ve pointed out many times, Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a Twitter account.

    –is only ever used to defend the use of that ax.

    Why, Robby, is no one who disagrees with the wave of SJW totalitarianism ever allowed to set THEIR own business or speech policies?

    1. Those policies don’t have to be fair. They do, however, have to be open and honestly followed. Twitter isn’t doing that. They are claiming to have a fair set of rules but then applying an entirely different set of rules.

      1. No, they don’t really even have to be fair. Considering most people don’t pay anything to use Twitter, they can ban anyone they want, for any reason they want. However, businesses that don’t treat their customers fairly usually don’t last for very long (Twitter is in the process of becoming the latest example of this).

        That being said, as a businessman, this annoys me almost as much as listening to the sales pitch of a car dealer. He’s full of shit, I know he’s full of shit, and he knows I know he’s full of shit; but he refuses to just cut to the chase. It’s infuriating.

    2. Well, the difference is that cake and marriage discrimination is discrimination against immutable facts of identity whereas Twitter banning is discrimination against behavior and/or the expression of particular ideas, which is ok, apparently, because you can just shut up or talk about different things, like sports or kittens. I don’t know, I think the difference isn’t important and free association either is a thing or isn’t, but apparently American law and a lot of people believe that you do in fact have a human right to hire people who don’t want to work for you because they think you’re naughty or icky.

      1. So if someone identifies as a Jew-hater and insists that Jew hating Twitter rants are as integral a part of his culture as wedding cakes are to gay people, he gets a pass?

  29. Though I despise Milo, it appears to me he didn’t do anything wrong. Abusive tweets are unacceptable however. I suspect their goal is to force Twitter to ban them, thereby starting up a war on speech.

  30. What’s funny about this is that Twitter’s relevance is dwindling rapidly, so the ban might actually help them get some renewed interest. The problem is that the 140 character limit. Initially the use case for Twitter was for people to text (when that was still a thing) stuff to the Internet. Then like a year later apps became a thing, so Twitter was almost immediately obsolete. It remained through changing the interface to allow for tweets sent via the site and mobile apps and has stayed around largely because typing on smartphone keyboards sucks, but the nail in the Twitter coffin was Snapchat.

    1. Things like instagram didn’t help either. A lot of twitter’s appeal was that it gave people a chance to follow their favorite sports star or celebrity and have some interaction with them. Increasingly, those that kind of thing goes on on instagram or other similar platforms that are less political and not the cesspool of trolls and ignorance twitter is.

  31. It’s not clear whether Yiannopoulos actually told his followers to direct abusive tweets at Jones?

    I can’t figure out if this douchebaggy equivocation is because of Robbie’s need to split every controversy or his antipathy for Yiannopoulos. But his twitter feed is public and it’s clear he did not tell followers to direct abusive tweets at Jones, this is just what people on the left say when someone criticizes them. Is it now Reason’s position that accusations made entirely without evidence should be summarized as “unclear” rather than saying there’s no evidence showing it to be true? Because it seems to me I read the latter pretty regularly.

    1. Either Robby is lying or he is lazy and didn’t look at the feed. You are correct. The feed is right there for everyone to see. And Milo never encouraged his followers to do anything. I would love to hear what Robby finds “unclear” about that.

      It is typical with him. No matter how appalling the left behaves, Robby is right there with “we really can’t tell what happened and the right may have deserved this” or some variation. Does Robby think his readers are too dumb to see through that?

      1. He didn’t encourage them *on Twitter*. But you obviously don’t know is that he has a secret e-mail tree set up to get in touch with all his followers under the radar. When he wants to heap abuse on Jones, he just emails two or three of his lieutanants with the order, and they each pass the order on by e-mail to two or three others, who pass it on to two or three others. Next thing you know, we have thousands of racist Milo-lovers filling Jones’s Twitter feed with vile and horrible things, while Milo says, “What, me?” He can’t prove that something like that didn’t happen, and until he does, Twitter has no choice but to deny him his plausible deniability.

        1. I’m sure he really did use Twitter, but it was in code. What we need is the code book, then everything would be obvious.

          1. It were them racist Greek homo digital dog whistles.

    2. It’s the modern equivalent of “When did you stop beating your wife?”

      1. “When did you stop beating your wife?” Only long enough to tap yours.

    3. Reason has almost ceased being a principled libertarian journal at all. It’s conversion to a leftist SJW culture warrior journal is just about complete now.

    4. Not all tweets are public. He could send direct messages to followers, which you would not see but Twitter presumably can.

  32. I hope Twitter and its owners lose it all.

    Assholes.

    I just went and looked at Leslie’s tweets. Apparently, *that’s* okay though.

    Everyone can go fuck themselves. Ackroyd included.

  33. We got Gamergate, here comes “Twittergate”. 😉

  34. “Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair.”

    Not a lawyer. But is this true? Is an internet communication system a public accommodation in any way? If a gay couple can force a baker to put a certain message in a cake, can this guy force Twitter to put his messages on their servers?

    1. On the Reason legal ideology, it’s absolutely true. I don’t think it’s possible to have free speech in a culture where that capacity is not valued. I respect the fact that Libertarians really do try to protect free speech, but if the telecommunications media decided they don’t agree, I really see no libertarian(tm) principle on which their right to do so can be disputed.

      1. I think the principled libertarian response is Twitter should feel free to ban this guy. And the baker should feel free to refuse to decorate the cake. It’s pretty consistent. Find a different baker. Find a different Twitter. Etc.

        1. And yea, if you want to speak freely, get your own satellite and build your own international network of phone lines. Makes perfect sense!

  35. Free speech is an outmoded concept according to some libertarians – a concept applicable before the medium became privately owned. Once the public square is in private hands, you better get used to shutting up.

  36. Stephdumas|7.20.16 @ 11:10AM|#

    That’s a name from the past…

  37. I don’t get the hate for Milo on this thread. He’s been a one man wrecking crew of SJW propaganda and routinely destroys leftists in debates using strong reasoned arguments backed by empirical data. He regularly challenges the left on their own turf and completely disarms their identity politics arguments by being a flamboyantly gay conservative.

    Yet I see people saying he’s a “troll” or worthy of being despised?

    For the record, he didn’t direct anyone to attack LesJones, he simply called out her shit movie as garbage which it is.

    ISIS and the KKK have twitter accounts praising terrorism and racism, yet Twitter singles out the gay conservative because his followers said mean things to a black lady?

    What the fuck is wrong with you Soave? You getting turned down on too many dates lately?

    1. The only better “troll” would be Ezra Klein coming out as a Men’s Rights Activist… :o)

  38. Dump twitter and facebook and unReason.

  39. “As I’ve pointed out many times, Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don’t have to be fair. There’s no universal human right to own a Twitter account.”

    This was refreshing to read. So relieved to see an author recognize the difference between government restriction on speech (and its constitutional implications) and the right of private companies to promote its own speech policies.

    1. Yeah. Because you never see people saying that online.

  40. uptil I saw the check which had said $6115 , I didn’t believe that…my… cousin woz actually erning money parttime on their apple laptop. . there uncle had bean doing this for less than nine months and a short time ago cleared the loans on there apartment and got a top of the range Mini Cooper
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  41. uptil I saw the check which had said $6115 , I didn’t believe that…my… cousin woz actually erning money parttime on their apple laptop. . there uncle had bean doing this for less than nine months and a short time ago cleared the loans on there apartment and got a top of the range Mini Cooper
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  42. Giving his friends and followers a reason to reward his antics with even more attention seems like a worse result than simply letting him tweet his offensive remarks.

    Except he’s not the one making the offensive remarks. Is he to be punished for the sins of those who follow him, but over whom he has no control?

  43. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ———————-> http://www.CenterPay70.com

  44. Wood for the Wood Chipper.
    Skulls for the Skull Throne.

  45. I dropped my account today. Twitter is cool to supporters of cop killers and terrorists. Let the SJW enjoy the resonance of their echo chamber as the CEO rides the platform into bankruptcy. I find I have much more interesting interactions on message boards like this.

  46. How did they shave that wookie?

  47. Video Bokep
    Hello very nice website!! Guy , .. Excellent .. Superb ..
    I will bookmark your site and take the feeds also?
    I am glad to search out a lot of useful info here
    in the post, we’d like work out more strategies on this
    regard, thank you for sharing,. googd your blogs
    Obat Pembesar Penis

  48. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.