Free Speech

Be Worried About the Future of Free Expression

There's a growing, and troubling, acceptance of speech restrictions among millennials and Democrats.

|

"Ads That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Will Be Banned in U.K., but Not in the Good Ol' USA!" reads a recent headline on the website Jezebel. Yay to the good ol' USA for continuing to value the fundamental right of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.

Why would a feminist—or anyone, for that matter—celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about gender stereotypes? Because these days, foundational values mean increasingly little to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points out, because nefarious conglomerates like "Big Yogurt" have been "targeting women for decades." She, and the British, apparently, don't believe that women have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads peddling probiotic yogurts.

This is why the U.K. Committee of Advertising Practice (and, boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the cliche "Orwellian" to describe a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart idea. It will ban, among others, commercials in which family members "create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up," ones that suggest that "an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa," and ones in which "a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks."

If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the state, it's unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. I'm not trying to pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials and Democrats. For them, opaque notions of "fairness" and "tolerance" have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.

You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) arguing for hecklers' vetoes in public university systems. It's major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives "aid and comfort" to our enemies.

If it's not Big Yogurt, it's Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of "fairness." This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than President Donald Trump's tweets mocking CNN.

It's about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be restricted, and that "Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies." Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until the rights of their political opponents were shut down.

You can see where this is going by checking out Europe. Dismiss slippery slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where hate speech has been banned, police have raided the homes of 36 people accused of posting "illegal content." A law was passed last month in Germany that says social media companies could face fines of millions of dollars for failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.

In England, a man was recently sentenced to more than a year in prison after being found guilty for stirring up religious hatred with a stupid post on Facebook. There are hate-crimes cops who not only hunt down citizens who say things deemed inappropriate but also implore snitches to report the vulgar words of their fellow citizens.

When I was young, liberals would often offer some iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This was typically in defense of artwork that was offensive to Christians or bourgeoisie types—a soiled painting of Mary, a bad heavy metal album, whatnot.

You don't hear much of that today. You're more likely to hear "I disapprove of what you say, so shut up." Idealism isn't found in the notions of enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you don't believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the left that portends danger of freedom of expression, you haven't been paying attention.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Movie Review: Dunkirk

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. Well, let’s first say that Jezebel isn’t a feminist site. It’s a blatantly misandrist site. They do not support equality. They openly support female superiority.

    The Left NEVER supported the concept of free speech. They just wanted a voice when they weren’t in power in certain institutions. Now that they run colleges, they have never cared about free speech and have just, piecemeal, been seeking to limit opposing viewpoints on campus. It makes providing ANY federal funding to college a mistake.

    1. Human history tells us that the oppressed quickly become the oppressor. Enlightenment principles directly deal with this human fallibility. Both the perceived “left” and “right” are willing to oppress. It just depends on what, but it’s all negotiable.

      1. So the institutions and rule sets (e.g. Constitution) are pretty fucking important. Cause the people naturally suck.

        1. Come now, everyone knows that we have ways of getting around the “constitution” when we need to remind certain individuals of the rules of civility. Surely even Mr. Harsanyi himself would not dare to defend the inappropriate “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. The ACLU supports free speech (even Nazi free speech). Do you consider them “Left” or not? I don’t consider college snowflakes who need safe spaces from free speech “Left” or “Right”. They are just snowflakes.

      1. Very reasonable points.

      2. ACLU supports the freedom of speech of pathetic, weak historical holdovers (like Nazis and KKK) that pose no threat to the left’s grasp on power, and have the additional benefit in that they provide fundraising flier material for left-wing outrage industry groups like ADL and SPLC. Because of this some laud them as being consistently for freedom of speech, not just another left-wing front group.

        But when the chips are on the table, they do not support freedom of speech when it poses a threat to the leftist agenda.

        ACLU opposes the freedom of speech that was upheld in the Citizens United decision.

        ACLU did not make a peep about the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups.

        ACLU does not care about Berkeley police standing idly by while leftist thugs attack conservative political rallies (which is objectively equivalent to the police doing the attacking themselves).

      3. When was the last time you saw the ACLU to step up in support of Conservative speakers such as Ann Coulter at UC Berkeley?

      4. Well you certainly crushed that college-snowflake-strawman, with your single counter-example of the ACLU (who gets a lot of shit from the left for stepping out of line on this issue, btw).

        But there’s more than college snowflakes in the article:

        “You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) arguing for hecklers’ vetoes in public university systems. It’s major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies.

        “It’s about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be restricted, and that “Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.”

      5. Let’s see…who did they vote for? That would be either Hillary or Bernie.

        Fascism ALWAYS comes from the left.

      6. I don’t consider college snowflakes who need safe spaces from free speech “Left” or “Right”.

        Then you’re either remarkably ignorant about where those snowflakes overwhelmingly lie on the political ideology spectrum, or that is just a pathetically weak attempt at obfuscation….or both.

    3. Jezebel is also part of the Gawker network, so presumably they’re OK with revenge porn as long it’s not of them.

    4. They do not support equality. They openly support female superiority.

      Sounds like a feminist site to me

  2. U.K. Committee of Advertising Practice

    Fuck that action.

  3. This is particularly disturbing, but not really surprising. Marxism has made a comeback and hard. A part of me hopes it’s a passing fad but if it goes and seeps itself into the political process like it seems to have in Europe and Canada, it could get really bad really fast.

    I’d like to think that Americans have too much of a rebellious streak to allow that but we have changed a lot as a culture in the last 100 years.

    1. Just got back from two weeks in Greece-now there are some people with a rebellious streak! Most Americans are pussies when it comes to valuing free speech-allowing the extremes on both sides to try and fuck the other (and the rest of us) over in the process.

      1. It’s not unexpected that people living with a sky-high unemployment rate would be rebellious.

    2. With the decline of monarchical rule, Marxism was just a void to be filled as the industrial revolution took over.

      Call warfare and nationalism are easy sells to stupid masses.

      I think we are on a crash course that will take us from our current form of fascism(cronyism, corruption, gov’t collusion), to socialism and collapse of some sort. Collapse is a process, not an event.

      The idiots don’t really wake up until the water cannons are coming down the street. Then even they can become capitalists out of necessity.

      What I love about an ignorant American marxists is they have no idea they are Marxists and in fact have absolutely no idea thet all humans are really capitalists. Meaning, everyone thinks they have the right to prosperity and know that they need to have profitability in their own lives. Many are just too enraged with envy to let others have that right.

      1. Absolutely! ^

      2. Absolutely! ^

      3. I disagree. I believe you see the world in Anglo-saxon tinted glasses. In most cultures, freedom is not such a big deal, whereas hierarchies and tribal attitudes prevail. Most would rather be slaves, if they are promised enough crumbs. We, those with principles, are few.

  4. I agree that Sandra `s storry is really great… on thursday I bought a top of the range McLaren F1 after having made $4476 this past month and-over, $10 thousand this past-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the most comfortable job I’ve had . I actually started 5 months ago and immediately began to bring home over $69 per-hour . find more info

    ……………. http://www.JobBiz5.com

  5. This is worrying, but hardly new. The Progressive Left has always abused power when it had any, and has never valued freedom of expression except where it was their expression being freed. What is new is that we are seeing the petulant swine as they are, rather thanas they would present themselves, and don’t they hate THAT?

  6. This isn’t liberalism. Our Constitution is a liberal document. The first amendment is the most important pillar of liberalism in US governing philosophy. There are a lot of liberals, like myself, also worried about this tendency among “progressives” to want to suppress uncomfortable speech.

    1. Indeed. Free speech (free exchange of ideas) forces ideas to stand on their validity, or be crushed with reason.

      1. Which is exactly why some elements are so opposed to it; gets in the way of narratives and agendas, and when you are morally superior [in a humanistic way, of course] there should be no need to argue about it in the first place.

        1. Agreed!

        2. Like Robespierre, who believed he was virtuous. Just kill the ones who don’t share your virtuous beliefs.

    2. Like it or not, that’s not what “liberalism” means in 2017.

    3. Yeah, who did you vote for? Bernie or Hillary. Search reason.com for

      Hail to the Censor! – Hillary Clinton’s long war on free speech

  7. A worrying and disturbing trend although at the highest judicial level (SCOTUS) the First Amendment has never been in better shape.

    1. [T]he First Amendment has never been in better shape.

      I suspect you are talking specifically about speech. Freedom of association is recognized as being part of the First Amendment and has been dead since well before the Great Leap Forward Great Society.

      1. Freedom of association is recognized as being part of the First Amendment and has been dead since well before the Great Leap Forward Great Society.

        I don’t know that I’d quite say “dead”. But it’s not great. And it’s never been great. Before the great society stuff, there was Jim Crow stuff.

        Speech is very well protected. Press (by which I mean any means of mass communication) is not quite as strongly protected, but still better than in most countries.

        1. Out of curiosity, where does freedom of association exist, in a way that can be said to be consistent with the requirements of the document?

          I’m certain I’m missing something, but It seems to be either subsumed or at the very least, under continual assault in every case I can think of.

          1. Outside of businesses that are considered public accommodations and certain union employment situations, where does it not exist?

            1. Did you read my post? Because you’re not replying to it.

            2. Outside of businesses that are considered public accommodations…

              That is not a trivial issue. The existence of private property being considered a “public accommodation” is the apotheosis of the abrogation of rights to free association. It drags the Fifth Amendment down to the bottom of the Constitutional cesspool of tyranny with it.

              /alliteration

              1. It’s not trivial, but it’s not the whole of free association.

                1. Jim Crow laws were completely against freedom of association, not for it, dude – regardless of the “feelings” associated with the term.

      2. Freedom of association is nowhere in the First Amendment. Peaceable assembly has nothing to do with deciding who to hire or fire. The concepts of hiring, firing, etc were known to the founders; it’s not like Internet speech which was something the Founders couldn’t have known about at the time.

  8. “Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking…”

    HOLY SHITSTORMS!!! CIGARETTE SMOKING?? NO!!!!! SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!

    But… does this mean that racist speech causes cigarette smoking, or that cigarette smoking causes racist speech?

    1. Cigarettes are white. And just as the black ash threatens to overwhelm the white, you throw it on the ground and stomp on it.

      1. Cigars are brown. So I’m smoking objects of color – does that make it OK?

        1. If you’re white, it’s a lynching.

          1. Burning in effigy.

      2. The e-cig vapor I exhale is white, and rises up-uh oh!

    2. But… does this mean that racist speech causes cigarette smoking, or that cigarette smoking causes racist speech?

      According to Progtards, Yes.

    3. Do I get a pass if I switch to Newports?

      1. Just as long as they’re not menthols.

      2. Kools or go home, whitey.

    4. Whichever provokes the greater negative reaction.

  9. ” It will ban, among others, commercials in which family members “create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up,” ones that suggest that “an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa,” and ones in which “a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.””

    Also verbotten is a woman who tells the family to clean up their mess because that is “bitchy”. Also, a man who expertly performs household tasks because that is just mocking the other stereotype and triggers, well everybody. However, whiny Jews will always be allowed.

    1. Timothy 3:26?

    2. Things change, Tom. It’s the cruelest law of the universe. Adapt or die.

    3. This is why I only come here for the comments.

  10. “You’re more likely to hear “I disapprove of what you say, so shut up.””

    If that were the problem, that would be great. Because, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that response whatsoever.

    The problem is that isn’t what happens. Instead of telling someone to shut up, the offended person calls the police, school administrator, congress, or any other authority figure and tries to use the power of the state to silence the offending speech. And even that wouldn’t be a problem on its own (other than demonstrating a general lack of principals or appreciation for what could happen when someone else is in charge). The real problem is that those authority figures follow through and attempt to use the power of the state to silence the offender.

  11. Back in the 60s it was books and movies (Naked Lunch, I Am Curious) that were banned. Now it’s TV commercials. That seems like progress to me.

    1. I thought TV commercials for cigarettes and liquor were banned in the 60’s.

      At least liquor ads are back.

      1. I remember commercials for cigars and smokeless tobacco until the early 1980s-usually ran during baseball games.

        1. Charlie Daniels pinch between the cheek and gum…

            1. fuck yeah! a) Walt Garrison, and b) Happy Days dip…I forgot both existed.

      2. Censoring TV ads has been around since TV. There’s no evidence presented that it’s ‘gotten worse.’

  12. “create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up,”
    “a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.”

    I really hate ads like that. The useless and incompetent dad is a particularly annoying advertising trope. But I will always stand up for the rights of advertisers to spew such idiotic bullshit at people.

    1. I think it’s genius. The people who make these ads are men (I guarantee). If men can show that they’re incapable of doing simple household chores, women feel like they have to in order for stuff to be done right. What better way to get out of doing chores?

      It’s the same reason that the men are always shown driving the mower around the lawn with a beer in hand.

      1. Doesn’t seem to work that way in my case. And I have to push my mower around like a sucker.

      2. Frankly, in my experience, if it’s the type of person who wants it done ‘their way or the high way’ they should do it their own damn selves. I’ll fix it how I want to fix it, or arrange it how I want to arrange it. I don’t care if it’s a man, woman, or self-identifying hamster.

        Obviously this doesn’t extend to one’s public life, but fuck you if you want me to arrange the dishwasher in a different way. My fianc? loads the dishwasher like an idiot, so I do it. That simple. If I don’t feel like doing it, and she does it, I live with the fact some of it is going to need to be redone.

        People who get butt-hurt over advertisements should probably slow their roll because advertisers generally do a lot of studies to determine what will resonate with their targeted public. What these idiots actually have a problem with is reality and the populace, not the advertisements.

      3. Shrink your wife’s favorite sweater in the dryer and you’ll never even be allowed to do the laundry again.

        Or…so I’ve heard….

  13. Well, we can just have plane packaging for everything I guess-like in Repo Man. That is what the SJWs really want. Exceptions can be granted for butt plugs and strap-ons.

    1. +1 Pablo Picasso, not an asshole.

  14. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials and Democrats.

    I suppose I should be investing in more firearms/ammo.

    allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than President Donald Trump’s tweets mocking CNN.

    Especially considering the latter is not a threat at all.

    in Germany, where hate speech has been banned, police have raided the homes of 36 people accused of posting “illegal content.”

    Don’t kid yourself. Progs in the US want this. Progs have a long history of jailing/murdering political opponents.

    1. But it’s for your own good, comrade. That and the party/collective.

    2. it wasn’t ‘progs’ who jailed Charles Lee Smith for the horrible crime of ‘blasphemy’. Maybe you should learn some history.

      1. I had to Google the name to learn some history but I think you’re mistaken that progs were not behind this prosecution. Progressivism isn’t right wing, left wing, Republican or Democrat. It is a belief that government should control the actions and beliefs of individuals beyond enforcement of common and civil law to create some mythical greater good. Back in the day, atheists, blacks, Irish, Chinese, dope smokers, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals and a many more were a threat to the social order just as the basket of deploreables are today. Hilary is a Progressive. Trump is a Progressive. Mr. Smiths prosecution was classic progressivism.

  15. It will ban, among others, commercials in which … “a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.”

    To be honest I’m a little sick of that trope: the clueless/ incompetent/ just plain stupid man can’t do anything right and then the smart/ capable/ fully empowered womyn has to step in and help the moron out.

    SLD: The government has no business banning those kinds of ads, I just find them tiresome and stupid at this point.

    1. the other group of commercial that are stupid and trending lately is the mixed black and white family which I’m fine with but I’m starting to think that maybe the producer of these commercial think an all black family would be racist or unrealistic since I almost never see that. its like the stupidity of when all the white tv shows finally had a black man in it but the black man was always gay. they must of thought a straight black man appearing with white people would be scary to someone.

      1. Tell us more about your feelings when you see a ‘mixed black and white family’ on TV.

        1. Like I wrote I’m fine with mixed families, my entire family is mixed, but why can’t they also have all black families thats the point i was making about the producers racist attitudes towards black people just like their political attitude that blacks are incapable of helping themselves and that is shown through their commercials as well.

          1. I would have thought that all black families appearing on TV would be less offensive to racists than mixed families.

        2. Guess you never watched “Parenthood”?

          1. or a commercial in the last nine years…

  16. What will Jezebel say when the ad police are taken over by white males that outlaw all ads that do not show a pregnant woman in a kitchen, barefoot? What then?

    1. Excellent point: Who will decide what is offensive?

  17. Well there’s a shit ton of speech suppression in places ruled by conservatives so yeah we’re in deep shit if traditional defenders of freer speech are losing their appetite for freedom.

  18. And isn’t the UK ruled by conservatives?

    1. their conservatives are more to left than our RINOs

    2. The conservatives aren’t really in power anymore in the UK. They never really were conservative and are now on the verge of being wiped out by the neo-Marxists formerly known as the Labour Party.

  19. I’m starting to think that statists want more government.


  20. Ads That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Will Be Banned in U.K., but Not in the Good Ol’ USA!

    So immediately, right off the bat, they use ‘gender’ as slang for sex. I thought these were supposed to be the goodthinkers, but even they apparently can’t keep up with the speed and volume of bullshit being spewed.

    See gender is the stereotype, I’ve been told, so either they are redundant or didn’t get the memo the gender isn’t what’s hanging between your legs, or not, as the case may be.

  21. Why am I unsurprised to find no mention in this article or comments regarding the actual, factual, introduced into Congress legislation that is supported by ‘both sides’ of our mainstream politicians, that is clearly designed to infringe upon the Free Speech rights of US Citizens?

    Why am I unsurprised to find no mention of this legislation which will clearly place unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech and association based on content discrimination?

    Why am I unsurprised to find no mention of this new bill ANYWHERE on Reason.com, even though it’s clearly a statist attempt to limit the freedom of US Citizens?

    Because it’s about ISRAEL, that’s why I’m unsurprised. Because it’s about the ‘Boycott, Divest, Sanction’ movement that is trying to get Israel to follow international law, and stop treating Palestinians the way SouthAfrica treated ‘colored people’.

    see https://www.congress.gov /bill/115th-congress/ senate-bill/720/text
    and https://www.aclu.org /letter/aclu-letter-senate -opposing-israel-anti-boycott-act

    1. ” stop treating Palestinians the way SouthAfrica treated ‘colored people’.”

      Wrong issue. Reason supported Apartheid South Africa.

      1. Reading is hard.

        https://reason.com/tags/south-africa

        (Scroll down to “Reason Accused By Conspiracy Theorist” since the full URL for the article is over 50 characters.)

        1. Reading is not hard. Reason published multiple articles apologizing for the apartheid regime in South Africa, and these days they routinely publish authors like Chapman, etc who have never said a word of criticism against Israel, let alone congress’s shameful attempts to stifle speech.

  22. To quote myself “as much as I hate the idea of history being cyclical (simultaneously too cynical and too trite, which is kind of a feat, I guess) a fairly large portion of our population seem intent on proving it.

  23. Ha – be worried about the present of free expression. Post a criticism of a public figure in Washington State on Facebook, and you can be thrown in jail for a year. Professor Volokh is tackling just such a case right now.

    http://wapo.st/2uaOY18?tid=ss_…..afb55f2b69

  24. Millennials aren’t listening to you, David. I hope you’re not conflating them with Democrats. Libertarian moment and all that.

  25. Democrats are communist scum of the earth and millennials are too young and stupid to know anything.

    Democrats should be rounded up and gassed; Millennials should be locked up and caned daily until they’re 30. If their minds aren’t properly adjusted by then, they should be shot.

    There’s already too much bullshit on this planet to have to put up with either of those classes of useless turds.

    1. Your mom

  26. Importing a few million Saracen Berserkers at the wheels of large trucks just might give the Sharia lawyers something more important to yelp about.

  27. “Be Worried About the Future of Free Expression.”

    Always have been, always will be.

  28. ************Income Information***************]
    ]
    ]
    ]
    ]

    I get paid ?82 every hour from online joobs. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my friend AB is earning ?9k monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website..

    ????????? http://www.Prowage20.Com ?????????

    1. I want one of those online joobs!

  29. The Freedom of Speech hold the truth and a lie as being equal, and so is a falsehood. I think that Freedom of Expression entitles a person to express themselves, but holds them responsible for how they choose to. I think that Freedom of Expression is more like a right to speech and other expression, with responsibility, whereas Freedom of Speech is a bit mindless and undiscerning, and leads a lot of people to feel that they’re proving something they don’t understand when they spout vapid and hostile rhetoric.

    1. I think…

      I see precious little evidence in your post to support that assertion.

  30. I wonder if many of the comments here, and the article, are focusing on the wrong things. What is wrong with advertisers, specifically through an office tasked with helping reduce (outdated and often unfair) gender stereotypes in their privately-produced but massively-distributed external communications, setting strong guidelines for such communications? If their influence over societal attitudes that are unhealthy for society can be guided to be healthier, why is this a problem? Why is it different saying, “you may not show men as superior beings who earn salaries while woman stay home and vacuum,” than saying, “portrayal of people with dark skin as primarily household servants or steps-n-fetch-its does not fit a modern and inclusive vision of society, so don’t do it”?

  31. Big Yogurt was my nickname in college.

  32. There’s a growing, and troubling, acceptance of speech restrictions among millennials and Democrats

    Good. It’ll shine light on the hypocrisy of the saintly Republicans whose fuhrer is demanding curbing of the press.

    1. Literally Hitler!!!

  33. Thanks, David, for the article. Straightforward and on point as is always your style. Keep ’em coming.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.