|
i think you'll find the best way to curb hate speech is to give everyone a fully automatic firearm, because an armed society is a polite society
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
as a non-american, im literally incapable of understanding the concept of free speech. what is this "free"? we do not have such things in my country
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:as a non-american, im literally incapable of understanding the concept of free speech. what is this "free"? we do not have such things in my country Well I mean it's socialized but it is all paid for before hand via your high tax rates. No such thing as a free lunch and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
speech tax? not on my watch, obamao, my speech is FREE
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Freedom of speech is probably overwhelmingly a good idea, but when we have got to the point of protecting the rights of rabid anti-abortion protestors to harass innocent patients trying to receive what should be a private decision (also another constitutional right! But hey its okay to poo poo on that one right?) then I think we might have gone a step too far in the wrong direction. I don't know, it seems the people who scream the most about free speech just want to use it to harass people unlimitedly all while going "I"M NOT TOUCHING YOU HA HA NOW BURN IN HELL FOREEVVERR!" So yes, I guess hate speech should be protected, but the lines between "innocent" (lol?) hate talk'in are so blurred with straight up harassment that it's kinda ignorant to pretend that society only benefits from it without exception.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Just look at Europe or Canada or Australia to see how racism and bigotry have been completely eliminated by these laws. Checkmate Americailures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
free speech zones y/n ??? and if n why do you hate minorities???
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Freedom of speech is probably overwhelmingly a good idea, but when we have got to the point of protecting the rights of rabid anti-abortion protestors to harass innocent patients trying to receive what should be a private decision (also another constitutional right! But hey its okay to poo poo on that one right?) then I think we might have gone a step too far in the wrong direction. I don't know, it seems the people who scream the most about free speech just want to use it to harass people unlimitedly all while going "I"M NOT TOUCHING YOU HA HA NOW BURN IN HELL FOREEVVERR!" please show me the amendment that guarantees the right to murder defenseless babies, censorailure
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Whose definition of Hate Speech are we codifying? The popular majority? quote:Don't get me wrong-I understand and agree with you that this topic tends to bring out the fishmech in people. It also tends to bring out Pollyanna ignorance for a vocal contingent of the opposite end. It's a complex issue. "Do unto others, and make it illegal to be a shithead" is as disingenuous and wrong as "Prohibition on any speech will become prohibition on all speech" No, its really not. One view acknowledges theres nuance to human behavior the other enables discrimination in economic transactions which until money is no longer free speech again is something America is at least trying very hard to politely ignore. Its also why independent of speech codification we've legislated gay marriage into tacit acceptance and made it illegal to racially profile housing applicants. As I implied, we have to have laws because there are pedant bad actors, you try to structure your government policy and laws to get the best most possible outcomes, not what you wish the world was; a great example of which is DADT, which itself was invoked because it was a compromise of acknowledging reality without having to afflict the comfortable with the burden that maybe their hate speech and bigotry was objectively wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you feel about people being made to leave public spaces to avoid abuse? That it's orthogonal to 'hate speech'? The guy could be shouting anti-gay slurs. Or he could be shouting about lizard people. Or just making loud 'gobble gobble gobble!' noises. In any of those scenarios, the problem (in as far as one exists) is that the crazy-shouting guy is creating an intimidating nuisance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Now please craft a law that would ban this behavior (more effectively than stalking/harassment/assault laws already on the books) while not preventing: Catholic Priest Abuse survivors from seeking redress, Ex-Scientologists from airing their grievances, Striking workers from forming picket lines or demonstrations, counter-protesters at WBC rallies or pro-life rallies, anti-war/anti-capitalism protests, Pastors/Rabbis/Imams from preaching about social issues, or raped women from protesting their abusers and/or institutions that protect them. Are any of those things directly targeting specific individuals? Because if not then they have nothing to do with what I was trying to get at, trying to hide abuse and harassment behind cries of "free speech" and trying to protect harassment as such by pointing towards fallacious slippery slope arguments. You can picket all you want, so long as you aren't rushing up into the face of the woman having the abortion directly and refuse to leave her be when she asks you to. quote:Back to your hypothetical-what if I'm not following them down the street and screaming? What if I whisper that to my son, so he learns about the abnormal deviancy of such ungodly behavior? What if I'm a radical gay environmentalist and I scream (or whisper) about straight couples leaving fertility clinics for being filthy breeders ruining our planet via overpopulation? As long as you aren't doing it directly to individuals. quote:Whose definition of Hate Speech are we codifying? Noone's, this is just a general discussion, not an actual plan of implementation. quote:Don't get me wrong-I understand and agree with you that this topic tends to bring out the fishmech in people. It also tends to bring out Pollyanna ignorance for a vocal contingent of the opposite end. It's a complex issue. "Do unto others, and make it illegal to be a shithead" is as disingenuous and wrong as "Prohibition on any speech will become prohibition on all speech" I'm against people trying to pretend that abuse and harassment is free speech. Now, nobody here is going to admit to doing that, but when you get down to it some people are going to go ahead and say that, yes, it is ok to spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse at people so long as they don't actually say "I will/somebody should murder you". And that's already happened, in SedanChair's reply to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you feel about people being made to leave public spaces to avoid abuse? Not great, but better than I would feel for someone to be arrested for saying something I don't like. Now, however, if they continued to follow me, or they start shouting at the top of their lungs so I can still hear them, and everyone around can too, for the sole reason of continuing to harass me after I have made reasonable accommodation for them to exercise their right to free speech they have very clearly escalated from speech to harassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not great, but better than I would feel for someone to be arrested for saying something I don't like. No, however, if they continued to follow me, or they start shouting at the top of their lungs so I can still hear them, and everyone around can too, for the sole reason of continuing to harass me after I have made reasonable accommodation for them to exercise their right to free speech they have very clearly escalated from speech to harassment. why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested? My closet libertarian friend always intones to me that "People just want to be left alone and live their lives." and then argues to me that hate speech/crime laws are weird and unnatural and we shouldnt have them because everyone is equal. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Wasn't there a "fighting words" law or something? Like you can wear white pajamas, burn a cross and chant Heil Hitler so long as you do it in a place where nobody can hear you. If you do it in a public place, that's hate speech because that can incite violence, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:My closet libertarian friend always intones to me that "People just want to be left alone and live their lives." and then argues to me that hate speech/crime laws are weird and unnatural and we shouldnt have them because everyone is equal. If everyone acts like complete jackasses towards each other then only then will we be a truly free society. Government restrictions on speech greater than 6 inch voices is synonymous with fascism in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Mavric posted:Freedom of speech is probably overwhelmingly a good idea, but when we have got to the point of protecting the rights of rabid anti-abortion protestors to harass innocent patients trying to receive what should be a private decision (also another constitutional right! But hey its okay to poo poo on that one right?) then I think we might have gone a step too far in the wrong direction. I don't know, it seems the people who scream the most about free speech just want to use it to harass people unlimitedly all while going "I"M NOT TOUCHING YOU HA HA NOW BURN IN HELL FOREEVVERR!" I agree that the "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU!" argument is bullshit. You've got people doing poo poo that's clearly intended to force communication onto an unwilling victim. We should just treat the thing as a harassment problem, without adding the weird political layer that comes with 'hate speech' laws. At some level, I don't care how polite the pamphlets are; I shouldn't be forced to push past a crowd of shouting people just to go from A to B.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
I think part of the problem is that their are people who think the first amendment also protects them from criticism. Not censorship, criticism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not great, but better than I would feel for someone to be arrested for saying something I don't like. Now, however, if they continued to follow me, or they start shouting at the top of their lungs so I can still hear them, and everyone around can too, for the sole reason of continuing to harass me after I have made reasonable accommodation for them to exercise their right to free speech they have very clearly escalated from speech to harassment. Perhaps there is a middle ground where you can call the police on the basis that the man is being unpleasant in public and they can ask him to stop, and if he doesn't they can tell him he needs to leave because other people have a right to not be directly insulted in public, and then if he still persists they can arrest him and he can chill in jail for a while until he cools off. You don't need to prosecute people criminally for everything but "being a massive rear end in a top hat in public" is a reasonable thing for there to be police powers to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested? Nose-restrictions are perfectly legal. So you can ban megaphones and shouting. If there's a ban, then the shouting-dude scenario gets really, really easy. Otherwise, it's just legal by default.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:We should just treat the thing as a harassment problem, without adding the weird political layer that comes with 'hate speech' laws. Agreed. Harassment is harassment. The language used should be pretty irrelevant short of direct and specific threats of violence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Agreed. Harassment is harassment. The language used should be pretty irrelevant short of direct and specific threats of violence. Yeah. No one is mad because you disagree with this person, people are mad that you disagree and think the right course of action is to find that person's phone number, leave threating messages and make them fear for their lives in order to get them to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:why should people have to accommodate verbally aggressive jackasses? why does their speech take president over anyone elses right to go about their business unmolested? It depends. SedanChair's scenario was vague, and so was my reply. If the scenario is that a gay couple is minding their own business and they are approached by a third party who begins to, very calmly and politely, tell them that their lifestyle is disgusting and sinful, then if the couple asks the third party to stop and/or leave then that third party is obligated to do so or be guilty of harassment. I believe you have a freedom to speak freely, but you do not have the freedom to be heard by an audience against their will. If a gay couple approaches the third party instead, and during the conversation the subject turns towards, again, the gay couples' lifestyle being sinful and vile, then I believe that the couple can be expected to break off and go about their business. Should they be followed and continue to be accosted against their will then it has, again, escalated to harassment on the part of the third party. Again, it comes down to freedom of speech not entitling you to forcing anyone to listen to that speech. Even if the tone of speech is calm and non-vulgar, you can't shouldn't be able to make me listen to it. So in a public space the only practical solution I can see is that whoever was there first is the one that doesn't have to leave. Is it perfect? No. Will there be exceptions? Absolutely. Am I going to make an exhaustive list of these exceptions? No. Am I going to be grilled about them? Probably, and that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Yeah. Theres a reason the laws protecting government workers says threaten and not harass, you may all want to think a little bit harder about this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:I think part of the problem is that their are people who think the first amendment also protects them from criticism. Not censorship, criticism. I'll bite one this: The law recognizes that criticism can become harassment if it's repeated enough. This is good. It's one thing for a critic to be mean. It's another for a critic to start following their target repeating the criticism endlessly. This is creepy. It interfere's with someone's ability to live a normal life. We recognize that this is harmful. So, society imposed limits. The problem is that we're starting to see "distributed harassment". One person becomes a target of a diffuse group. They get followed around & criticized endlessly. That person is effectively being stalked & harassed. But since there's no individual stalker, the law can't do anything. People should have a right to participate in politics & society without being effectively stalked for their efforts. That's not really being protected now, so I think people can make a non-stupid complaint here. (That said, I have no idea how you'd actually write an anti-distributed-harassment bill without getting horrible consequences) falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't need to prosecute people criminally for everything but "being a massive rear end in a top hat in public" is a reasonable thing for there to be police powers to prevent. Such law will only exists for 15 minutes before it becomes infamously associated with police abuse. Who What Now posted:It depends. SedanChair's scenario was vague, and so was my reply. If the scenario is that a gay couple is minding their own business and they are approached by a third party who begins to, very calmly and politely, tell them that their lifestyle is disgusting and sinful, then if the couple asks the third party to stop and/or leave then that third party is obligated to do so or be guilty of harassment. I believe you have a freedom to speak freely, but you do not have the freedom to be heard by an audience against their will. I can just walk around in a blackface halloween costume and get my detractors arrested? awesome! on the left fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
on the left posted:Such law will only exists for 15 minutes before it becomes infamously associated with police abuse. I've seen police simply use loitering laws to the same effect anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:
Yeah that's not possible. You just have to accept the fact that some people/positions are not going to be popular in society and catch any cases that cross the line into acute harassment. Trying to build a national hugbox is just going to explode in your face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah that's not possible. You just have to accept the fact that some people/positions are not going to be popular in society and catch any cases that cross the line into acute harassment. Trying to build a national hugbox is just going to explode in your face. You guys keep using that word harassment interchangeably with threaten. I'm telling you again this is not something you can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Hate speech laws are already codified as protecting minority or classes of people that have no self determination of their status. The concept itself is designed to be apathetic to democratic tyranny. Then please address Geoff Peterson posted:If I'm a protestant and I believe in the concept of the Elect, my belief system may mean that I was born destined, without the choice of rejection, to aggressively witness and espouse my Christian social values. What happens when my 'existence in a way I have no choice about' conflicts with gay couples (or those who wear mixed garments, or football players)? RuanGacho posted:No, its really not. One view acknowledges theres nuance to human behavior the other enables discrimination in economic transactions which until money is no longer free speech again is something America is at least trying very hard to politely ignore. Yes. Citizen's United was poo poo. I also think your assessment of "self-determination" and "apathetic to democratic tyranny" are overly simplistic when it comes to application. Who What Now posted:Are any of those things directly targeting specific individuals? Because if not then they have nothing to do with what I was trying to get at, trying to hide abuse and harassment behind cries of "free speech" and trying to protect harassment as such by pointing towards fallacious slippery slope arguments. You can picket all you want, so long as you aren't rushing up into the face of the woman having the abortion directly and refuse to leave her be when she asks you to. quote:Noone's, this is just a general discussion, not an actual plan of implementation. In that case, I'm with you. As a general principle, in a vacuum, protecting people-and especially structurally disadvantaged classes-from harassment and bigotry is an admirable goal. I doubt you'll find nontrolls on D&D advocating for more harassment and bigotry as a principle. That's not to say implementation will find consensus. quote:I'm against people trying to pretend that abuse and harassment is free speech. Now, nobody here is going to admit to doing that, but when you get down to it some people are going to go ahead and say that, yes, it is ok to spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse at people so long as they don't actually say "I will/somebody should murder you". And that's already happened, in SedanChair's reply to me. Loathe though I may be to defend SedanChair, I think you're ascribing the incorrect motivation to him and others that disagree with you. Regarding your hypothetical, "Gays are icky and evil and should be stripped of citizenship" is a despicable example of offensive speech. However, you and many others are clearly more troubled by the behavior ("refuse to leave", "spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse") than by the content. I'm not seeing anyone advocate in this thread for free speech as "I can say whatever, whenever, however, and to whomever I choose and there will be no criticism or consequence to my actions" Who What Now posted:Is it perfect? No. Will there be exceptions? Absolutely. Am I going to make an exhaustive list of these exceptions? No. Am I going to be grilled about them? Probably, and that's fine. Is there a way to ask you to elaborate on your ideas/proposals without it being "grilling"? If so, what is it? I'm genuinely curious. falcon2424 posted:People should have a right to participate in politics & society without being effectively stalked for their efforts. That's not really being protected now, so I think people can make a non-stupid complaint here. Yeah, the issue here, as it comes to #CyberLynchMobs/Sealioning/JAQing off, is that an individual engaging in distributed harassment is indistinguishable from the individual who has a genuine question or disagreement and is seeking goodfaith clarification. If I disagree with the premise of an element of Anita Sarkeesian's videos, is my criticism now made illegal because 8chan decided to flood her? What if I'd like the Lion Killing Dentist to know that I disagree with him killing Cecil? If PETA puts out a call for its membership to do the same, are my actions now illegal? crabcakes66 posted:Yeah that's not possible. You just have to accept the fact that some people/positions are not going to be popular in society and catch any cases that cross the line into acute harassment. Trying to build a national hugbox is just going to explode in your face. On the other hand, minimizing and mocking efforts to stop the harassment that has the intended impact of intimidating its targets into silence is lovely as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:harassment that has the intended impact of intimidating its targets into silence Assuming there is some widely organized and intended impact behind a mass of people negatively engaging a target seems  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
"I should have the right to not be subjected to any disruption in my daily life; lest of which the verbal kind" ~a thing said in earnest by leftists ITT, 2015
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Wasn't there a "fighting words" law or something? Like you can wear white pajamas, burn a cross and chant Heil Hitler so long as you do it in a place where nobody can hear you. If you do it in a public place, that's hate speech because that can incite violence, right? That is the worst definition of fighting words I've ever heard
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I'll bite one this: The waters are so muddy on this it's ridiculous. Is being tweeted at the same as being followed around? Is call-out culture the genesis or catalyst to the majority of this type of harassment online? Are media organizations culpable when they knowingly engage in it? Is letting those same type of media outlets hide behind a different set of laws than an average person doing the same thing the correct approach?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Assuming there is some widely organized and intended impact behind a mass of people negatively engaging a target seems Gamergate? Like, I've got zero interest into derailing the thread down this line, but there are certainly examples of (at bare minimum) some people claiming affiliation with the movement orchestrating a campaign of harassment to intimidate people into silence. memy posted:That is the worst definition of fighting words I've ever heard At least nobody is talking about Fire in a Crowded Theatre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I'd say don't prosecute individiuals who joined in idly, ie people who posted dumb poo poo once, or sent her a single hateful email calling her a mean name, but do seek to pursue organizers and rabble rousers who encourage people to harass as well as those who cross the line into harassment with threats, persistence, real life phone calls, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:From that list: Rape/Molestation survivors confronting their abusers would appear to qualify, as would picketing with grievances outside of a sole proprietorship. It would also make it difficult for striking workers to confront scab replacements. Can you be more specific by what you mean in the Rape/Molestation survivor confronting their abusers? Are you asking if they should have a right to bring accusations before a court of law? Yes, absolutely. If you mean something else you'll need to be specific. Same with picketing, what are you talking about here? Should picketers be able to gather at a reasonable distance that doesn't directly impede or disrupt the lives of other people in the public space? Yes, absolutely. Should they be able to block an entrance or exit and not allow anyone to enter or leave, or be allowed to bully and harass people who try to enter or leave? No, absolutely not. On the basis of striking workers and scabs, that's a problem of our hosed up labor laws. While I'm certainly more sympathetic to the strikers, in principal I still don't agree with the use of physical violence or harassment against strikebreakers. quote:In that case, I'm with you. As a general principle, in a vacuum, protecting people-and especially structurally disadvantaged classes-from harassment and bigotry is an admirable goal. I doubt you'll find nontrolls on D&D advocating for more harassment and bigotry as a principle. That's not to say implementation will find consensus. I doubt that true. The problem is determining what is or is not harassment. I believe harassment includes attempts to force people to listen to and/or engage with speech against their will, especially in ways that make them feel as if they are or could be in danger. And, shockingly, people of minority status are much, much more likely to feel that way, so I am a proponent of hate speech laws. quote:Loathe though I may be to defend SedanChair, I think you're ascribing the incorrect motivation to him and others that disagree with you. SedanChair said that the scenario he laid out should be protected speech. If he forgot to qualify that with "except for the parts where they are clearly committing harassment" then that's cool, he can say so and I'll take his word for it and that'll be that. But until then I'm going to assume when he says that the scenario as is should be protected he means that the scenario as is should be protected. quote:Regarding your hypothetical, "Gays are icky and evil and should be stripped of citizenship" is a despicable example of offensive speech. However, you and many others are clearly more troubled by the behavior ("refuse to leave", "spit and scream and hurl verbal abuse") than by the content. Yes, in a sense that is correct. However, it's a combination of the content of the speech (what is said), the context of the speech (when, where, and how it is said), and to whom it is said (targeted speech vs general speech). The WSB picketing with signs that say "God hates Fags" in a designated area is absolutely free speech that should be protected. The WSB walking behind a man for a block and a half while chanting "God hates fags" to a gay couple is not. The content matters, but so does the manner in which they are doing it and whether or not they are doing it to a specific person. Some people think that all political speech, no matter the context or the target, should be protected under all circumstances. Again, if that's really not anyone's position, then fantastic, I'm glad we agree. If it isn't, then tell me why harassing people using political speech is ok. quote:Is there a way to ask you to elaborate on your ideas/proposals without it being "grilling"? If so, what is it? I'm genuinely curious. I'm having fun, ask however you want. Your post was fine, but it honestly doesn't bother me if I get grilled or even if people get nasty and start slinging mud too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Gamergate? Like, I've got zero interest into derailing the thread down this line, but there are certainly examples of (at bare minimum) some people claiming affiliation with the movement orchestrating a campaign of harassment to intimidate people into silence. GG is very much an adoption of the same tactics call-out culture has been using for years. They mercilessly and continually poo poo on people who don't toe their ideological line via public forums. This isn't new or exciting, and the harassment native to that type of toxic activism has been ongoing on both sides of the political spectrum online for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:"I should have the right to not be subjected to any disruption in my daily life; lest of which the verbal kind" No no dawg it's different when my side does it
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:51 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Same with picketing, what are you talking about here? Should picketers be able to gather at a reasonable distance that doesn't directly impede or disrupt the lives of other people in the public space? Yes, absolutely. Should they be able to block an entrance or exit and not allow anyone to enter or leave, or be allowed to bully and harass people who try to enter or leave? No, absolutely not. Bye bye any form of social progress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:45
|
|