Free Minds & Free Markets


Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Is Threatening To Publish Bezos' Nude/Lewd Pics Criminal Blackmail?

When is a threat to reveal something embarrassing blackmail, and when is it permissible? Plus a special Bill Cosby (but non-sexual-assault) connection.

Jeff Bezos alleges that the National Enquirer has (1) threatened to release photos sexted between him and Lauren Sanchez unless (2) he puts out a statement recanting allegations that various Enquirer coverage was politically motivated (and promises not to make such allegations in the future). Is this criminal blackmail?

Here is an excerpt of the email that Bezos says the Enquirer sent him:

Here are our proposed terms:

1. A full and complete mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Jeff Bezos and Gavin de Becker (the "Bezos Parties"), on the other, may have against each other.

2. A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility.

3. AM agrees not to publish, distribute, share, or describe unpublished texts and photos (the "Unpublished Materials").

And here's the federal extortion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 875(d):

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person ... any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate ... commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

There are basically four elements in this statute:

1. There has to be a transmission in interstate commerce. An email qualifies.

2. There has to be a threat to injure reputation (whether through false allegations or through true ones). A threat to publish sexually themed pictures would qualify, I think. True, Bezos's affair with Sanchez is already publicly known, but the photos, if revealed, are likely to exacerbate the damage to his reputation by making the story more vivid and memorable and by exposing him to public ridicule. (Compare State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003), which found that a similar threat was a threat "[t]o expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule." A common definition of injury to reputation is exposing someone to "hatred, contempt, or ridicule.")

3. The threat has to be aimed at getting a "thing of value." Courts have generally read this broadly, to cover anything (tangible or intangible) that's valuable to the defendant. U.S. v. Hobgood (8th Cir. 2017) holds that even extorting an apology from the victim is covered:

A "thing of value" includes intangible things—such as a "sexual relationship," for example—and "the focus of the ... term is to be placed on the value which the defendant subjectively attaches" to what he seeks. The stipulated facts concerning Hobgood's efforts to secure a mea culpa from KB constituted sufficient evidence to support a finding that an apology from KB was a thing of value to Hobgood.

4. But wait:

Not all threats to engage in speech that will have the effect of damaging another person's reputation, even if a forbearance from speaking is conditioned on the payment of money, are wrongful. For example, the purchaser of an allegedly defective product may threaten to complain to a consumer protection agency or to bring suit in a public forum if the manufacturer does not make good on its warranty. Or she may threaten to enlist the aid of a television "on-the-side-of-the-consumer" program. Or a private club may threaten to post a list of the club members who have not yet paid their dues.

That's from U.S. v. Jackson (2d Cir. 1999), which was modified later on other grounds. The case involving an attempt to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby "by threatening to cause tabloid newspapers to publish" a woman's "claim to be Cosby's daughter out-of-wedlock." All those examples have this form:

  • A has a plausible claim that B should do X (e.g., make good on a warranty, or pay a debt).
  • A is demanding that B do X.
  • A is threatening to reveal that B hasn't done X.

This is often called the "nexus to a claim of right" requirement, or just the "nexus" requirement—if the threat and the demand are connected to something to which the threatener is entitled, then the threatener is not punishable. The absence of such a nexus is the fourth element of the crime. Many states, interpreting their state laws, have required a similar showing of absence of nexus, in part on First Amendment grounds; see here for more.

How does this play out? Let's return to Hobgood, where the defendant demanded an apology from his ex for her supposed mistreatment of him during their brief relationship. Had he done this simply by threatening to reveal the mistreatment—"apologize to me for beating me, or I'll tell all our friends how you beat me"—then the nexus element would have been satisfied, and he would have been off the hook. But he was threatening to do something else, which meant that he failed the nexus requirement:

Hobgood's threats were "wrongful" in the sense that they had no causal nexus to a claim of right. His threats to disseminate information that KB was an exotic dancer and prostitute were not related to why he thought she owed him an apology. Hobgood's speech is a far cry from a consumer complaint aimed at receiving a refund or a club manager's public identification of members who are delinquent on paying their dues. In those cases, the speaker has a plausible claim of right to the thing of value, and the threat is related to that right. Not so here.

State v. Pauling (Wash. 2003) reached a similar result applying Washington state extortion law:

The trial court concluded that Pauling knowingly and intentionally attempted to obtain the $5,000 judgment from Doe by threat and that such threat communicated to Doe an intent to continue to send the nude photos to friends, family, and neighbors. Clearly, there was no nexus between the threat to send nude photos to family and friends and the collection of a lawful judgment. This conduct is sufficient to establish the crime of extortion....

For the same reason, I don't think the nexus requirement covers what the National Enquirer is accused of threatening. Even if the Enquirer has a plausible claim of right to the apology for allegations of political influence (perhaps if the allegations were indeed incorrect)—and a plausible claim of right to having Bezos promise not to repeat those allegations—the threat to publish the photos is not "related to that right."

Finally, note that the Washington extortion statute, which basically has the same elements as the federal statute (though without the need for interstate communications), may also apply here: Though the messages were presumably sent to Washington from out of state, Washington law covers any "person who commits an act without the state which affects persons or property within the state, which, if committed within the state, would be a crime." Bezos is apparently a Washington resident.

Photo Credit: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • James Pollock||

    I would think that if the pictures are wrongfully obtained, that would have a bearing. My guess is, that's why the first thing they want from Bezos is a release on "all claims".

  • mad_kalak||

    Bezos is publicly saying that the pics were obtained by a government entity. If that's the case and it can be proved, Katie bar the door.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, that's a helluva claim. I'ma wait for confirmation on that one.

  • mad_kalak||

  • Sarcastr0||

    Oh yeah, my twitter is all about it. (My liberal blogs are fixated by the Whitaker spectacle :-/)

    But it's nothing until names are named and corroboration offered.

  • mad_kalak||

    True. And Whitaker was hilarious if you ask me (you admittedly didn't).

  • Sarcastr0||

    I didn't ask, but I kinda agree.
    I'm more bemused by both him and the Dems than full-on amused.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I got Gastelum.

  • mad_kalak||

    Oops, to clarify, it's not Bezos but one those working for him making the claim. Bezos may be thinking with his d*ck lately, but he's not that dumb.

    Nixonian if true, but not much different than spying on Congress and hacking a CBS reporter's computer.
    I suppose there will be enough plausible deniability to go around.

  • ReaderY||

    If that's true, a blackmail prosecution is the least of the problems here. I would definitely want to know who this "government entity" was and who gave it its orders. And the color of that person's house paint and the shape of his office.

  • mad_kalak||

    It would never get that high. Like Iran-Contra, or the IRS targeting scandal, or the spying on Congress during the debate on the Iran agreement, there will be either someone lower down who falls on their sword, or enough high up people covering for each other in a giant circle jerk, that no one will be held accountable, (should it even be true, and at this point it is wild speculation and likely a way to distract).

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In most cases I would agree with that assessment.

    A disruptor has warped norms lately, however, and in this case enough bipartisan weaponry might be arranged (if the friendly firers were confident they could get away with it) to overcome the historical trend to refrain from approaching or crossing that line. Many or most of the people working for the relevant person appear not to be fond of him.

    Live by iconoclasm, find yourself floating face-down in an atypical sea of political peril.

  • KevinP||

    Brennan, Comey, McCabe and Strzok are unavailable for comment.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Who the fuck wants to see this dude's crank anyway? Tony maybe?

  • nonzenze||

    That's the beauty of it. By admitting in a public letter that there are pictures of his pecker, he deprives Pecker of any real advantage of threatening to print them. Sure, they might be salacious, but we already knew he sent them and we can more or less imagine what it's going to look like if they are published.

    The whole extortion/bribery thing is a nice sideshow, but the real point here is Bezos burning the value of them.

  • Toranth||

    So would it be blackmail if someone's boss threatened to fire an employee if he did not stop abusing his wife?
    - There was a threat communicated
    - It would damage the employee
    - The boss obviously considers stopping a thing of value, or they wouldn't ask for it
    - There's no nexus between an employee and his wife (assuming not a fellow employee).

  • santamonica811||

    I think your hypo
    -misses the element that the action of the boss would hurt the reputation of the employee (although, of course, being fired might be seen as hurting the reputation)
    -certainly misses the interstate element. (But might not be a bar to a state offense, where there is no such element)

  • Toranth||

    "Reputation or property", and I would think losing your income counts as loss of property (at least it seems to in many other places). Plus, being fired is frequently looked at as a negative when hiring decisions are made.

    The interstate, yes, you are correct there. I was more interested in what I see as a very broad set of situations that probably shouldn't count as 'blackmail' rather than the 'Federal' factor. I suspect that many states have similar laws, such as Washington's statute mentioned in the article.

  • See.More||

    . . . I would think losing your income counts as loss of property

    Getting fired is not "losing your income". Being robbed is.

    Getting fired equals being barred from earning future income from that employer. You have no property right to any wage or salary you have not yet earned. Thus, the loss of a particular revenue stream (the job) is not a loss of property.

  • James Pollock||

    In an at-will employment state, the employer has the right to fire the employee for any reason not prohibited by law, or for no reason at all. You don't extort someone by threatening to do something you're allowed to do; you're extending an offer to contract.

  • bernard11||

    You don't extort someone by threatening to do something you're allowed to do; you're extending an offer to contract.

    I think you do.

    I'm allowed to publish accurate but derogatory information about someone. But if I demand money not to publish it, that's extortion, isn't it?

  • ThomasD||

    Doesn't it depend on the nature of the information as to whether you may freely publish it?

    Dick pics solely for the sake of public embarrassment might not be protected.

  • Dan S.||

    Suppose a waitress threatens to publicize what a lousy tipper you are, unless you start leaving her (and her colleagues) more, She has no "claim" to the tips, since tipping is optional, but I wouldn't think such a "threat" would be criminal.

  • aluchko||

    I think the nexus is satisfied since the reputation of the Boss (and business) would be damaged if it were known that they knowingly kept on an employee who was beating their wife.

  • RobC_||

    Legal issues aside, anyone who would publish nude pictures of Jeff Bezos is one of history's greatest monsters.

  • Quixote||

    Yes indeed, and what is more, there is no "First Amendment right" to threaten anything of the sort.

    The "nexus to a claim of right" argument Eugene refers to is like saying (and I'm sure he will agree with me here) that inappropriately deadpan "parody" should be legal if it's somehow connected with a "right" to expose longstanding allegations of malfeasance, say on the part of a distinguished academic department chairman. But clearly there is no such "right" to begin with, as exposing allegations of malfeasance can lead to loss of a job, and as we all know, those in the higher echelons of academic society are entitled to their jobs regardless of any misconduct they may have engaged in. See the documentation of our nation's leading criminal "satire" case at:

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Legal issues aside, anyone who would publish nude pictures of Jeff Bezos is one of history's greatest monsters.

    . . . or just the kind of guy who pals around with a vainglorious, vulgar, greedy, lying, cheating boor, and produces the type of yahoo "journalism" purchased at the supermarket counter with a Slim Jim, a huge Mountain Dew, and an off-brand energy drink.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    Wow. That's an awfully good post, and frankly not at all what I'd expect from ALK.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    At least it's not a lesbo video of the biddies from 'The View'.

  • Homple||

    Why bother with this logic chopping? Some judges will keep pulling decisions out of the back of their robes until a really big judge decides the matter as he or she sees fit.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Now do a libertarian analysis of blackmail.

  • Big Glade||

    Walter Block just did on the Tom Woods show like yesterday.

  • ReaderY||

    It sounds like American Media has just admitted that it's coverage was politically motivated. If I were Jeff Bezos I wouldn't worry too much about their releasing the pictures.

  • Toranth||

    Not necessarily. Many companies/organizations these days have faced losses for being perceived as political. AMI might be claiming that Bezos's accusations are harming their reputation, and thus just want them to stop.

    And if they did claim it, you can believe as as much of it as you want.

  • SlickNick||

    "AMI's reputation" I am struggling to imagine what could be harmful to their reputation.

  • Robert Crim||

    Claiming that aliens DIDN'T collude with the Trump organization to steal the 2016 election?

  • Eddy||

    I thought the Weekly World News was the alien paper.

    The Enquirer is about celebrities and sex, preferably a story combining both.

  • santamonica811||

    It has evolved (devolved? mutated??) over the years. Back in the day (70s for sure, probably also the 80s) there were tons of aliens-themed headlines. For those of us who have not picked up an edition in decades, it's still one of the ways we think about it.

  • James Pollock||

    " it's still one of the ways we think about it."

    Plus bigfoot and Elvis and JFK. Also, I'm guessing, currently out of favor. I believe Lady Diana Spencer still shows up a lot, but I'm not conversant enough to know for sure, nor am I intending to research the subject.

  • PoxOnBothYourHouses||

    "it's still one of the ways we think about it."


  • JCCC1||

    More evidence, frankly, that more jurisdictions should get onboard with anti-revenge-porn laws like CA.

    Bona fide confusion about model release forms are one thing, but even public figures have compelling interest in protection of modesty when it comes to this kind of threat.

  • nonzenze||

    Maybe as a society, we should just start to see the victims of these things just like victims of any other crime rather than objects of public scorn or shaming.

    If a person sent nudes to a consenting partner, more power to them. If a slimy ex or a slimy iPhone thief decide to publicize them, it seems clear who is in the wrong and who is blameless.

  • Grand Moff Tarkin||

    I hope this goes to discovery and that I get to work on the document review. That could be a lot of fun. I am currently working on a document review involving another billionaire's company. Freaking spoiled brats. I really don't care who wins, but I don't want bad precedents created.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    This bickering is pointless.

  • Rob Misek||

    The internet is unregulated like the Wild West.

    That means that sometimes you can get away with breaking the laws of civilization and that means you can get fucked over in the same way.

    For about $500 any one of your home addresses could be bought. You have no privacy here. Only the laws protect you.

    As it is the anonymous can steal our "private" information.

    So do you want the illusion of privacy and security or do you want it for real.

    Real security and privacy precludes anonymity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If Bezos knows who stole his pictures, all he needs to do is get some criminal evidence against the Clintons, have it leaked to the thieves, and then tip off the Clintons to this fact.

    The perp, or perps, will be dead of suicide or robbery within a week. And nothing to lead back to him.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    "Real security and privacy precludes anonymity."

    As does real civil discourse.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Bezos looks like a guy who has a short, thick cock. Probably veiny, too.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't need that imagery. I can happily go the rest of my life without ever seeing his dick too.

  • Eddy||

    I don't know if they were blackmailing Bezos, but if they were threatening to publish his nude pictures they were blackmailing the public.

  • David2411||

    Sounds like President Trump was extorted by a porn star.

  • bernard11||

    Not if he approached her, I think.

  • jph12||

    What if she made a counteroffer?

  • Eddy||

    The guy who runs the National Enquirer is named Pecker, so of course the NY Post headline was "Bezos Exposes Pecker."

  • tpaine||

    Well you know it's obvious what he modeled the look of his rocket after.

  • Lee Moore||

    I see the statute begins with with "Whoever, with intent to extort from any person...."

    But EV's analysis seems to be focussed on the subsequent words. I'd like to know what "extort" means in the intention bit. How would the statute be different if it began :

    "Whoever, with intent to obtain from any person...."

  • Robert Crim||

    OK: So, now prove that the email originated with the National Enquirer, and that the email received by Bezos is the same email the National Enquirer sent.

    Clearly, there would have to be a claim of agency in the sending -- that some jackass running the mail room sent the email in the name of the corporate president would not be enough. And my guess is that the NA has covered any tracks it inadvertently may have left behind.

  • commentguy||

    If that were the case you would think that AMI would have issued a statement to that effect.

  • nonzenze||

    If it comes to that, discovery of the original in the AMI's email system would be pretty easy.

    I doubt Bezos' lawyers would fail at such a thing.

  • Leo Marvin||


    Bezos also alleged that AMI's publication of the selfies would infringe his copyright. AMI responded that publication would be newsworthy comment on Bezos' business judgment, a matter of public interest, and thus Fair Use.

    How much, if at all, does Bezos' tacit acknowledgement that the pictures exist vitiate their newsworthiness for Fair Use purposes?

  • James Pollock||

    It is not news that Mr. Bezos has a penis.

  • WillPaine||

    The prize here would be obtaining the information about Trump that Pecker has said he has locked away, yes?

  • Robert Crim||

    Now, that would be a Post headline: "Pecker Exposes Trump!"

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||


  • jdgalt1||

    It seems to me that a threat to reveal a true fact ought never be actionable, unless the victim has a contractual right to have the fact kept secret.

  • nonzenze||

    So if I learn a true fact that such-and-such beats his wife or sells drugs, and I have no contract to keep that fact secret, it's OK for me to demand $1000 in cash per week or else I'll go to the cops?

    I don't think many folks would sign on to this view of what the law ought to be.

  • Jmaie||

    I would...maybe I'm an outlier but I'd like to see polling data...

  • Kazinski||

    I think you are offbase in your analysis that the demand:
    " A public, mutually-agreed upon acknowledgment from the Bezos Parties, released through a mutually-agreeable news outlet, affirming that they have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AM's coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that they will cease referring to such a possibility."

    doesn't have a nexus to a claim of right. Obviously the letter is talking about their coverage of the dickpics, and the dickpics were the leverage they were using to get the acknowledgement. And if they think that Bezo's claims of political motivation were false, they would have a right to ask him to retract them. Now it is up the the courts to decide whether the nexus is close enough, or a claim of right, but I think there clearly is a nexus.

    And it certainly helps American Media's claim that the letter was drafted and sent by their attorneys. It makes it hard to show they had a criminal intent, unless their attorneys testify they told them it was illegal, and that seems far-fetched they'd tell them it was illegal and send the letter anyway.

  • jsfreason||

    That was my question. Who has committed the crime here (if there is a crime)? AMI, or its legal counsel?

  • James Pollock||

    "And it certainly helps American Media's claim that the letter was drafted and sent by their attorneys."

    Or it doesn't.
    If you drafted it yourself and it sounds like extortion, that might be a mistake. If you had your attorney draft it and it sounds like extortion, it's because you told the attorney to draft it to look like extortion. Then you get to ducks walking and quacking.

  • crufus||

    New York Post headline:
    Bezos Exposes Pecker

  • loki||

    Dude. It's the fucking Enquirer. The only proper response would be " You don't have the balls".

  • nonzenze||

    Actually, Bezos hit exactly the right response. He's acknowledged that he sent dick pics to a consenting recipient, that robs them of most of their value.

    Given where we are as a culture, unless you sent your dick to folks that didn't want to receive it, most people are going to see that as part of a normal relationship. Surely the pics are not morally more blameworthy than the actual consummation of the affair, and no one is lining up to brand him with a scarlet letter for that.

  • Jerry B.||

    "...unless (2) he puts out a statement recanting allegations that various Enquirer coverage was politically motivated..."

    Bezos alleging that a media outlet provides politically motivated coverage surely falls somewhere in the "Pot-Kettle" continuum.

  • James Pollock||

    "Bezos alleging that a media outlet provides politically motivated coverage surely falls somewhere in the "Pot-Kettle" continuum"

    Which doesn't make the claim inaccurate. "But those other guys were doing it, too!" is not an excuse for wrongdoing.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Why is blackmail a crime?

    It involves no violence, no threats of physical harm. It is merely a offer to exchange information, or to keep it unpublished for a fee. Assuming the information is not stolen property, what violation of the individual's rights has occurred?

    If I have pics of you boinking your secretary and offer to sell them to you/destroy them for $10,000 or give them to your wife for free, why is that a crime?

    Or is blackmail a crime because powerholders who'd be subject to blackmail want it to be a crime?

  • vek||

    And that's the funny thing.

    One can voluntarily offer to bribe somebody to never mention something... But if the person who has the info ASKS for a bribe, it is illegal.

    Quite ridiculous. I think we can all agree it can be an unsavory thing... But the particulars of the legality are a bit odd.

  • ThePublius||

    Psychologically torturing someone, with the aim to extract something of value, is a form of violence.

  • commentguy||

    It's a crime because most people wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of extortion (note that you don't have to be particularly powerful to be extorted, or even to have done something illegal or immoral), and it's hard to think of a scenario in which extortion would actually be beneficial to society. Basically, people value their privacy and if someone's done something seriously bad, the correct thing to do is reveal it, not try to cash in.

  • vek||

    What an idiot. How has a guy his age not learned to NOT send dick pics? LOL

    Not that I want to see his junk or anything, but it would serve him right for being so stupid. Getting the chick to send him n00dz... Sure. But don't send pics of your own junk!

    PS. Why the hell is he cheating on his wife with some old dumpy broad like that? He's the richest guy on earth (for the moment), he should have been banging some smokin' hot 21 year old. Moron on all fronts.

  • nonzenze||

    What's wrong with sending dick pics to a consenting recipient? Is it somehow more morally suspect than actually shtupping them?

  • tgrondo||

    Well, in Mr Bezos' case, sending a "pecker pic" has proved to be a pretty dumb thing to do. Now the whole world knows his business...(Who he's shtupping!)
    But if I was him I'd be more embarrassed that my "Lovey-Dovey" texts were made public...have you read any of them ? "I want to feel you"......"I want walk in the rain and wake up in your arms, my darling" (Barf)

    Holy fuck this guy is a cornball...!

  • vek||

    I'm not saying it's immoral, it's just dumb if you don't want people to see your dick!

    I haven't sent a dick pic in about 1,000 years, because I figured out it's a BAD idea. Apparently the richest man in the world doesn't realize what your average smart high school kid knows nowadays: Don't send n00dz to people, because they may be seen by people other than intended.

    The sappy texts are bad enough.

    Bezos strikes me as being the guy his public persona made him seem to be in the 90s. Basically a smart, weak sauce beta male bitch. He happened to get really rich because of the smarts, and he unleashed his Revenge Of The Nerds powers onto the world with some bits of ruthlessness here and there... But under it all he's still a short, tiny, weak sauce little dude who probably lacks self confidence.

    I'm not Clint Eastwood on steroids or anything myself, but Bezos always came off like a bitch even to me.

  • ||

    Flip the facts. Tabloid recently ran a story correctly alleging that the Amazon HQ went to NYC due to a suitcase of cash from AO-C. Bezos holds snapshots from the tabloid's recent bacchanalia at Hotel Pegasus in Vegas. Tabloid demands the negatives (go with it), threatening to run an even more damaging story about politics and Amazon that would establish the tabloid's sterling reputation. Two sophisticated and powerful actors with the power to harm and be harmed. Perhaps a test for claim of right in a corporate gunfight might be whether the primary benefit from the compelled conduct goes beyond the eye-for-an-eye of the current back and forth. Two fellows fighting in an alley. One says, punch me again, and I'll tell your wife where you were last night. Different from demanding 20 bucks, perhaps.

  • Ishmael||

    So let me get this straight, Leftists. Covington Children tots open to "hatred, contempt and ridicule" - even if true - but maybe not all time big boy Libtard Marxist Robber Barron Bezos?

    Wow! What lack of equality seems proposed by what used to be a part of "Reason"!!

  • Paul Alan Levy||

    Why only Washington state law? Could AMI or its representative not be prosecuted under the law of the state from which they sent the extortionate email (which I assume is New York state?)

  • higgyb||

    Anyone really want to see Lex Luthor's junk?


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online