First Amendment

Teen Girl Kicked Off Cheerleading Team for Saying 'Fuck Cheer' Wins First Amendment Lawsuit

Students have the right to complain about school.

|

Cheer
Nullplus | Dreamstime.com

Cheerleaders have a First Amendment right to complain about cheerleading, even by posting "fuck cheer" on Snapchat, according to a recent, praiseworthy ruling in a federal district court.

The case concerned a teenage girl, referred to as "B.L." in the lawsuit, who was angry about being placed on the junior varsity cheer team as a sophomore even though a first-year girl had made varsity. She vented by taking a selfie with her middle finger raised. She captioned the photo "fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything," then posted it on Snapchat for 250 friends to see.

Unfortunately for B.L., one of these friends was the cheerleading coach's daughter, and the girl soon found herself removed from the squad. B.L.'s parents filed suit, and the case made its way to court.

In siding with B.L., District Judge Richard Caputo has affirmed an incredibly important First Amendment precedent: Kids do not lose their free speech rights when they become students, and schools may only punish objectionable speech if it truly disrupts an educational environment. B.L. wasn't even at school when she sent the snap, and it did not specifically reference her school or her cheerleading team, just "school" and "cheer" in general.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania represented B.L.

"The court recognized that public schools have no authority to discipline students for off-campus speech, except in very narrow circumstances," says Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU's Pennsylvania state chapter, in a statement. "Public schools need to stick to educating students and stay out of the business of disciplining them during their off hours."

Violations of college students' free speech rights attract a lot of attention from the national media these days, and even President Donald Trump says he's concerned about them. But defending the First Amendment rights of K–12 students is no less important. Perhaps if the free speech rights of kids were better protected, they would appreciate those rights more—and be more apt to defend them when they go on to college.

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.

139 responses to “Teen Girl Kicked Off Cheerleading Team for Saying 'Fuck Cheer' Wins First Amendment Lawsuit

  1. To clarify, she posted “fuck cheer”, she didn’t participate in a “Fuck” cheer.

    1. What about a cheer fuck? That would be even better.

      1. Jesus Christ you’re so tryhard.

      2. Boooooooooo

      3. Boooooooooo

  2. This was teachable moment about throwing semi-public temper tantrums, and I fear that this girl has received the wrong lesson by this result. Venting about disappointment to a friend is one thing, doing it on social media is uncivil.

    1. Yes, it was uncivil, idiotic and childish. And legal, and none of the school’s business.

      Of course, since it’s now immortalized on social media, it may dog her further on down the line.

      1. When she is in her twenties and does something similar about not getting a promotion at work? A court is unlikely to help her.

        She complained about the coach’s decision, to the coach’s daughter and presumably the rest of the team. It was not as if the school was spying on her. This is trivia to be invoking constitutional rights over.

        1. Maybe but it was also trivia for the coach and school to be risking a constitutional fight over. Especially when it was really obvious that they were going to lose.

        2. “She complained about the coach’s decision, to the coach’s daughter and presumably the rest of the team.”

          She complained about the decision of a public official? In a free country?

          1. Would her privilege of being a cheerleader be constitutionally protected if she yelled that during practice?

            1. This is insane.
              In no way is this a victory for free speech – it’s a victory for whiny entitlement and appeals to the state.
              In what world can a coach not dismiss a member of the team for any reason, let alone explicit insubordination and a very public demonstration of poor character?
              This is some participation trophy style bullshit.

      2. Yes, it was uncivil, idiotic and childish.

        So it’s perfect for social media, then.

    2. “This was teachable moment about throwing semi-public temper tantrums, and I fear that this girl has received the wrong lesson by this result.”

      Yeah, but hopefully the school received the right lesson.

  3. Public schools need to stick to educating students and stay out of the business of disciplining them during their off hours.”

    They do that kind of thing???

    1. Yes, but what they’re actually teaching is not what most people think it is.

    2. Also wouldn’t hurt to get schools out of the business of running sports teams and associated cheer squads.

      1. Oh come on. Sports is important to a good chunk of teenagers. And teaching sports is indeed teaching. Don’t be a killjoy.

        1. Some students may learn more useful life skills from sports than from the entire rest of school.

  4. Is the ACLU as quick to sue public universities when a student’s speech rights are violated in much more egregious ways?

  5. So would any personal conduct warrant getting kicked off a team? What if a student says racist things on Facebook? What if a student repeatedly curses and screams at teachers and gets suspended. Is that freedom of speech? It’s not assault or illegal. I just don’t find this to be a first amendment issue. She wasn’t allowed on the cheer team. I’m sure similar things happens thousands of times every year with students. What a silly case.

    1. Well, I’m glad that you don’t get to decide what a first amendment issue is than, since you can’t bother to read the article and can’t tell the difference between an off-hours post on social media and disruptive behavior.

      1. What about racist or sexist or inappropriate comments out of school? There are hundreds of cases of kids being suspended or expelled or getting in trouble for them. I don’t recall the ACLU defending them. She wasn’t kicked out of school. She was kept off a sports team for behavior. I’d imagine most sports coaches would bench or kick off a player from their team if they did something similar.

        1. Also, you’re right about my bad example of in-school vs out-of-school behavior. I read the article but hastily wrote my comment. However, nobody has a right to be on a sports team. It’s not some fundamental right. She shouldn’t be suspended or eve get detention from school, but sports teams should absolutely have the right to get rid of somebody they think will be a bad actor.

        2. Kid’s shouldn’t get in trouble at school for making racist or sexist comments outside of school either.

          1. I actually agree with that. The ACLU is just fucking atrocious on these grounds nowadays. I just think being cut from a team sport is very different from being “punished at school”.

            1. It seems to be one of those in-between situations, but here are some thoughts.

              It is administered by the school. It is run by employees of the school. Students get time off or have their assignments deferred by the school. In many cases there are classes for these teams that allow them to practice and recieve credit for school.

              How much “by the school” does it need before it becomes by the school?

          2. But she didn’t get “in trouble”?she just got cut from the cheering squad. She got cut for a good reason. Projecting a positive attitude and being a team player is literally in the job description of a cheerleader. She voluntarily accepted that additional responsibility, which most students don’t share. When she publicly gave the finger and a big “fuck you all” to her team, she failed in her responsibilities and deserved to be cut. No one is telling her what she may or may not say. She is free to post “fuck yous” to anyone on Snapchat as much as she likes. She just can’t be a cheerleader because she failed to meet her voluntarily accepted resposibilities.

            1. Correct, vernon

    2. Agreed. I don’t see how this became a First Amendment issue unless the school went out of its way to make it one – the girl apparently was unhappy with the cheer squad so they let her go. “If you’re not happy working here, you need to go find another job” is especially apt for a cheer squad where it’s this girl’s specific job to be happy.

  6. You know, this is one of those times when I’m inclined to go with the being free to speak doesn’t make you free from the consequences of your speech. The school really ought to have the right to boot her.

    If we could see some pictures of Ms BL in her cheer uniform, I might be persuaded to change my opinion.

    1. High schooler, you just made the list.

      1. Let’s not pretend we don’t know why the cheerleaders are there and why they wear those uniforms.

    2. Thank you for not forgetting the ultimate arbiter of the legitimacy of her suit.

      If You’d Hit, Her Claim of Damages Is Legit

  7. Well she’s never going to be varsity material with that attitude.

    1. You are almsot certainly lying about that.

    2. Maybe Mom has $500,000 and a sharpie.

  8. What would the ACLU have done if she had been holding up an AR-15 instead of a middle finger?

    1. Called for her expulsion from school.

    2. Has the supreme court made bullets the same thing as speech yet like they did with money?

      1. Have you stopped being a bitchy queen and a liar?

        1. I hope that I am those things only when the occasion calls for it.

          I take it there’s no one around to feed you your seroquel?

          1. I had never heard of seroquel before. Tony may have outed himself as to his need to foist his authoritarian/freak BS on a libertarian-leaning commentariat.

            Seroquel (quetiapine) is an antipsychotic medicine. It works by changing the actions of chemicals in the brain. Seroquel is used to treat schizophrenia in adults and children who are at least 13 years old. Seroquel is used to treat bipolar disorder (manic depression) in adults and children who are at least 10 years old.

            1. Well you diagnose him then.

              1. You diagnosed yourself as an unrepentant liar.

              2. I wasn’t trying to diagnose him.

                Wait a minute…. If Tony responds to me does that make it possible that I am just another voice in his head? Or that he is a voice in my head? Have I just diagnosed myself?!?

                How does that saying go? I think, therefore I disagree with Tony.

                That proves that I am real, right? Existential crisis here people.

                1. I think, therefore I disagree with Tony.

                  Lulz….

          2. You can hope all you want, you’re an admitted liar.

            1. Everyone lies. Did you not watch House?

              1. Another lie. Stop trying to normalize your lying.

      2. What is it about “bullets =/= speech” that has to do with showing pictures of guns? Should we ban pictures of guillotines from history textbooks because we don’t want people’s heads to get chopped off?

      3. Come on Tony, that’s weak. Are you actually saying that people could/should be prohibited from displaying pictures of themselves with guns? I doubt it, but you’re often disengenuous.

        And that whole speech=money thing is so stupid. The only question is, do you really want the government to have the power to ban the airing of movies?

        1. I think people should be prohibited from owning guns at all, which is one of the few flights of fancy I allow myself.

          Now libertarians try being practical about something. It’s fun.

          1. Now libertarians try being practical about something.

            What is it about “I think people should be prohibited from owning guns at all” that you think is “practical?” Is it as “practical” as “I think people should be prohibited from consuming drugs I don’t approve of?” Is it that kind of “practical?”

            1. I said it was one of the few occasions where I like to stake an absolutist but probably fantastical position, which is what libertarians do with everything.

              1. I said it was one of the few occasions where I like to stake an absolutist but probably fantastical position, which is what libertarians do with everything.

                Yeah – given that you’ve been hanging around this site for like 10 years and still have no idea what the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is, I’m gonna go ahead and file that away under “shit that Tony says.”

                1. Well I’m not in a vegetative state, so at some point don’t we have to blame the educators?

                  Anarchism is at least a consistent worldview, even if it is psychotic. The problem with libertarianism is it cares more about proving itself right than with helping anybody. What happens when big government is a better solution than any alternative? You have to reject it anyway, for the stated reason.

                  1. What happens when big government is a better solution than any alternative? You have to reject it anyway, for the stated reason.

                    And that is why you fail.

                    1. Well, that and being a pathetic bitchy liar.

                    2. So explain the evidence for why a free market in healthcare is better than a government subsidized universal scheme. Oh, there is none, yet you persist.

                    3. So explain the evidence for why a free market in healthcare is better than a government subsidized universal scheme.

                      Because we used to have a free market in healthcare, and it worked better. In the 1970s, poor people could get healthcare without insurance. I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that, but that’s not really my problem.

                    4. Let me clarify, since you’re super lazy and pretty closed-minded.

                      Here’s a quick summary of what Milton Friedman said about the postal service:

                      It may be the case that a private postal service is unsustainable and that the only way to achieve this incredibly valuable social service is to have government do it at a loss.

                      What is insanity is that the government actively tries to prevent private competition for the postal service.

                      You believe “Libertarianism” is something it isn’t, which is why you’re constantly confused by it.

                    5. And then because his intellect is insufficient to understand the nuances of Libertarianism, he lies about Libertarianism.

                    6. I think most libertarians will agree that there are as many versions of libertarianism as there are libertarians.

                      Merely being against government preventing private competition is among the lighter versions I’ve heard about.

                    7. And you lie about all of them because understanding them properly and then debating them based on that understanding is hard, whereas being a bitchy lying queen is easy for you.

                    8. The ‘essence’ of ‘libertarianism’ is simply this:

                      You have a right to anything you like as long as you are not harming others or compelling them to do things against their will.

                      This is interpreted many different ways, from seeing it as requiring anarchism to seeing it as requiring some kind of government to secure those rights.

                      That you decide that ‘libertarianism’ means the crap that LC1789 and Last of the Shitlords spew doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

                    9. The thing is I agree with that sentiment, except to the extent that compulsion is required in order to prevent people from harming others.

                      The central fallacy of libertarianism is not found here, however. It’s in the assumption that only human agents can cause harm to humans. Once you factor in environmental harm, and I mean more than climate but also the environment of not having seatbelts, not having education or healthcare, not having, for that matter, police and roads, we can easily arrive at a recognizable liberal “welfare” state as has proven so successful all over the world.

                      My one and only plea is that you defend specific policy proposals on their merits and stop caricaturing my position as something different in kind. It’s not socialism. It’s just directing resources in ways you presumably would direct elsewhere.

                    10. Why would anyone defend anything to a liar like you? You’ll just lie and obfuscate like you always have.

                    11. The thing is I agree with that sentiment, except to the extent that compulsion is required in order to prevent people from harming others.

                      Yes – which is why minarchist libertarians agree that government should provide police and military.

                      The central fallacy of libertarianism is not found here, however. It’s in the assumption that only human agents can cause harm to humans.

                      No – it assumes that questions regarding human rights don’t have any relationship with non-humans, and that you can’t make laws apply to non-human actors.

                    12. Once you factor in environmental harm, and I mean more than climate but also the environment of not having seatbelts, not having education or healthcare, not having, for that matter, police and roads, we can easily arrive at a recognizable liberal “welfare” state as has proven so successful all over the world.

                      How does that fit into “You have a right to anything you like as long as you are not harming others or compelling them to do things against their will?”

                      If someone not wearing a seatbelt doesn’t harm anyone else, why is it any of your business? And what is this “success” you’re talking about in other countries? You realize that Europe lacks a very large amount of these safety regulations you claim are really just extensions of libertarianism, right? Do you know what the minimum wage in Denmark is? Do you have any idea whether or not Denmark has an agency equivalent to OSHA?

                    13. My one and only plea is that you defend specific policy proposals on their merits and stop caricaturing my position as something different in kind.

                      That’s what I do, actually. I don’t have much interest in debating abstract principles with people, because I find that it’s largely pointless. I’ve never found that you have much stomach for particulars, actually, and seem to vastly prefer constituting “Libertarianism” as some abstracted ideology and then attacking that instead of talking about substantive issues. You know – like you’re doing right now.

                      It’s not socialism. It’s just directing resources in ways you presumably would direct elsewhere.

                      And again you fail on understanding libertarianism’s most basic premises. I would not presume to direct other people’s resources.

                    14. You just did what I said. Police and military protect us from human agents.

                      What justification is there for society to only pool its resources in order to defend against human agents? Why can’t it pool resources to defend against other kinds of threats?

                      This, I feel, is the central mental block of libertarians. They only see evil men hiding in the shadows. It’s inherently a conservative, agent-centric, punishment-centric worldview. The fact is there’s no reason at all free people can’t choose to pool resources to protect against disease and bad weather and all the other non-human threats out there.

                    15. What justification is there for society to only pool its resources in order to defend against human agents? Why can’t it pool resources to defend against other kinds of threats?

                      There’s nothing stopping you. The problem is that you want EVERYBODY to pay for what you want, not just those who would voluntarily contribute.

                    16. What justification is there for society to only pool its resources in order to defend against human agents? Why can’t it pool resources to defend against other kinds of threats?

                      There’s nothing stopping you. The problem is that you want EVERYBODY to pay for what you want, not just those who would voluntarily contribute.

    3. They would have provided pro-bono work for the school, of course.
      That is different. Different amendment, different speech and all that jazz.

  9. Fuck communism and every SJW !!!

  10. All of this for one bratty act by one bratty teenager?

  11. I think this is where the standard disclaimer would help: If education was trusted more to families and the private sector, there’d be more room for schools to set behavioral standards without risking the 1st Amendment.

    I would speculate that a private school, or a private sports team, would impose some kind of discipline, and it wouldn’t need to be a 1st amendment issue so long as it’s not the government making the decision about what sorts of expression to allow.

    1. “I would speculate that a private school, or a private sports team, would impose some kind of discipline,”

      For saying, “fuck cheer” in a private setting on a weekend?

      ISTM that the school’s conduct here was not just a violation of the 1A, but just dumb.

      1. The thing is, if it’s not Done In My Name by the government, it wouldn’t be my business.

        Of course, I believe in government involvement in education to the extent of requiring that kids get *an* education, but that could mean anything from going to Hippie High to learning Barnraising 101 with the Amish.

        I also tend to favor educational aid to the poor and disadvantaged, but in the form of helping them go to school, not requiring them to attend a govt-run monopoly school.

        But extending the net so far as saying who can be on the cheerleading team…I don’t see that as a necessary government function so I would hope as a citizen I wouldn’t be implicated unless my own children were involved.

      2. For saying, “fuck cheer” in a private setting on a weekend?

        SnapChat is not a private setting. That’s the whole point of it. She was publicly bad-mouthing the program she hoped to be further involved in. By the same logic, going on local-access cable TV to complain about something to however small an audience is not “comments made in private.”

      3. For example, if a student on a team sport, outside school hours, went on a huge rant about how they hated everybody else on the team and the coach was terrible, should either the team or the coach be able to decide to cut them from the team? They’re not getting kicked out of school, or punished by the school. They are simply being cut from a sports team. That’s not a right.

        1. But in that case specific people are mentioned. This Snapchat did not have that aspect.

    2. I think this is where the standard disclaimer would help: If education was trusted more to families and the private sector, there’d be more room for schools to set behavioral standards without risking the 1st Amendment.

      ^ This.

  12. The proper response by the school would have been to cite the post, and say “your resignation is accepted”.

  13. I was wondering what anyone else thinks of this story about the Parkland student that committed suicide.

    I think the takeaway is that the constant state of anxiety brought on by near constant exposure to fear-mongering through social media is incredibly unhealthy for young people.

    Kids are safer in schools and colleges than almost any other place, but this is completely lost in the rush get published.

    1. Or maybe it had something to do with her schoolmates being murdered around her.

      1. Or you being a bitchy queen with a low intellect who lies.

        1. I actually think you would be fun at parties, but not in the usual way.

          1. I can’t see many people caring about what you, an admitted liar, think about anything.

            1. And thank you, Tony’s voices, for blowing up my thread. I am sure he doesn’t need your help to feel persecuted.

              1. Much like his life around his father, he’ll get it whether he likes it or not.

            2. I mean you would be the weird guy in the corner people throw marshmallows at.

              I hate when I have to spell things out.

              1. And you would be the admitted liar.

                1. Lying is essential to being a good host. Were you raised by apes?

                  1. Yet another lie. That explains why you don’t realize people find you detestable though, they’ve been lying to you too.

                    1. I do try to surround myself with polite people. Sometimes the raving lunatics just won’t stop chewing at my shoe, though.

                    2. Your sex partners are your business.

                      I’m here to point out that you’re an admitted liar.

                    3. Is this an autistic thing or what? Everyone lies. People who admit to lying are telling the truth. I understand your kind struggle with irony.

                    4. Your mental health issues are also your business.

                      This is about you being an admitted liar, and also trying to normalize it pathetically.

                    5. Lying is normal, and only aspy weirdos don’t get it. Do you think playing with your anus on the subway is normal? Who are you to talk normal?

      2. Or maybe it had something to do with her schoolmates being murdered around her.

        I like how you immediately go for the easy and stupid answer that you think serves your agenda. Seeing people murdered tends to cause people to fear death, not covet it. We have the aftermath of a couple of world-wide wars that support that.

        1. The societal damage from fearmongering about completely irrational fears of absurdly rare events is far more dangerous than the things we’re supposed to fear. It makes as much sense to fear a school shooting as to fear being murdered by a previously deported illegal immigrant. Both are rare. They are statistical anomolies that will likely never be able to fully prevented.
          The fearmongering about both are the same. Our entire press just serves the Democrat agenda, so their irrational fearmongering is good.

          1. It makes as much sense to fear a school shooting as to fear being murdered by a previously deported illegal immigrant.

            ^ this.

            IIRC, one girl from Parkland was asked “how shocked were you when the shooting started?” Her response was something to the effect of “not at all – with how much the teachers talk about it, and how many drills we do, I’ve been laying awake nights expecting it to happen any time.”

          2. “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

        2. Seeing people murdered tends to cause PTSD.

          1. So does dealing with bitchy liars like you.

            1. You are more than invited to stop dealing with me.

              1. You are more than invited to stop being a bitchy liar.

                1. Sashay away.

                    1. So you’re telling me you were really going to bet $10,000 that neither a Republican nor a Democrat would be the next president? You’re telling the truth there? Really?

                      Go inappropriately put your scrotum on something, or whatever it is you do.

                    2. Yes Tony I don’t lie about betting like you do.

                      It’s why you were forced to admit you are a liar.

                    3. That makes one of us so far.

                    4. It hasn’t stopped you from trying to lie about it though.

                    5. Oh well. I’ll do it again: I’m married to a Hemsworth (I forget which one, but it hardly matters).

                      Now badger me for days on end about that why don’t you. The more you badger, the more everyone else here thinks you’re cool. For sure. Oops I did it again.

                    6. And on top of being an admitted liar you’re fucking boring.

                    7. I’ll give you this, playing poopy finger while in the fetal position on the rush-hour train is certainly not boring.

                    8. Your free time activities are your business.

                      This is about you being a liar.

      3. I’m with Tony on this one. One would suspect going through a horrifically tragic experience at a young age would contribute greatly to a mental state conducive with suicide.

        It seems awfully convenient to try to attribute blame to social media and fearmongering when her mother cited survivors guilt and PTSD.

    2. Suicide spurred by anxiety seems to have replaced horrible communicable diseases as the modern population limiter.

  14. You should update that graphic and have one person say “a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl”

  15. She vented by taking a selfie with her middle finger raised. She captioned the photo “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything,” then posted it on Snapchat for 250 friends to see.

    I pass the torch to next generation. It’s time for me to spray paint “Gay Pride” on the Supreme Court Building and then be the guy who gets to set up the chairs and quietly relax at Libertarian meetings. Granted, those Libertarian meetings might be inside a federal prison, but I wouldn’t be the first NJLP candidate to end up in a federal prison in recent years.

  16. This is not a free speech issue. No one is telling her what she may or may not say. What she posted revealed her attitude towards the cheering squad. The coach was well within the bounds of her authority to boot her off the squad for having that negative attitude. How and where the coach found out about her attitude is irrelevant. As others have pointed out, this girl has been taught a bad lesson that could cause her serious problems later in life. In the adult world, what you think and feel matters to others for legitimate reasons, and they have the right to change their relationships with you or how they treat you based on what you express. If you exercise your right to express yourself recklessly, there can be consequences for your relationships with others. The ACLU won’t always be there to throw you a pity party.

  17. She vented by taking a selfie with her middle finger raised. She captioned the photo “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything,” then posted it on Snapchat for 250 friends to see.

    I’ll be in my bunk

  18. I need more details. Was this a sophomore who learned she wouldn’t be a varsity cheerleader as a junior?

    But it doesn’t really matter. If she doesn’t want to be on JV, she shouldn’t be on JV.

    She needs to learn this lesson now. I had a 50 year old employee quit because a younger person got a promotion. Shit happens and you need to learn to get your ego in check. This was a teaching moment and we failed her.

    Now, send pics.

  19. 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.GeoSalary.com

  20. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?
    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  21. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  22. Start making cash online working from home .I have received $18954 last month by working online from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in part time just for 3 hrs a day. Everybody can get this and makes extra dollars online from home by just copy and paste this website and follow details……. http://www.home.jobs89.com

  23. Start making cash online working from home .I have received $18954 last month by working online from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in part time just for 3 hrs a day. Everybody can get this and makes extra dollars online from home by just copy and paste this website and follow details…… http://www.Home.jobs89.com

  24. Start making cash online working from home .I have received $18954 last month by working online from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this job in part time just for 3 hrs a day. Everybody can get this and makes extra dollars online from home by just copy and paste this website and follow details…… http://www.Home.jobs89.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.