public service announcement

posts about #publicserviceannouncement more →
The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Yes, It Hurts When Women Accidentally Get Hit "Down There"
Why Do Domestic Violence PSAs Have To Be So Violent?
Ladies' Night
Ladies Night
Ladies Night, With A Twist Of Dudely Lime
Ladies' Night
Ladies' Night

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Blueberry26
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
The job of the Secret Service is to protect the President. It's not like this person is being hunted down to be thrown into some dungeon and tortured, or his/her family being hurt in any way. Not like what used to happen and still does happen to people who dissent in countries that do not recognize freedom of speech.

S/he will be investigated by the USSS and probably flagged and watched or something to make sure no action is actually taken. Because that's the SS's job and right. This is not a violation of a person's rights. It is an effort to protect the leader of the damn country.
Reply

schweppes promoted this comment Blueberry26 was starred Blueberry26 was unstarred

Ultraprison!
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
He's not protected by freedom of speech, because Congress didn't make a law against him. People are very confused as to what the first amendment says. See also:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Reply

Ultraprison! was starred Ultraprison! was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@Ultraprison!: Congress can't make laws against specific persons. That's a bill of attainder.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
The funny thing is, that this speech IS protected speech under the first amendment. He cannot be arrested for this. It's not incitement of violence.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Ultraprison!
09/29/09

@schweppes: It's not incitement of violence? Are you kidding me? It's about him getting killed.
Reply

Ultraprison! was starred Ultraprison! was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@Ultraprison!: Absolutely, 100% not. Incitement of violence has consistently been read as a VERY narrow exception to the first amendment. This is so far from it. The headline to this article is actually inaccurate.
Reply

Edited by schweppes at 09/29/09 1:04 PM schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

ampersandparade
09/29/09

@schweppes: You are a crazy person. This isn't about the plausibility about an assassination attempt against the president, this is a person asking other people whether they think (FEEL) President Obama, in particular of all world leaders, should be killed. Not impeached, or removed from office, or having never been elected in the first place, not even dying of natural causes. But murdered. Killing is an act of violence, and I would dare say that asking people if they would like to see the president of the United States killed is stirring something, and certainly not just a conversation about the legitimacy of the president, but something much darker.
Reply

ampersandparade was starred ampersandparade was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@ampersandparade: I am not a crazy person. I'm a person who understands the doctrine of the incitement of violence exception to the first amendment and how it does not apply here. It's not about what you FEEL is right or wrong, it's about whether a person can be arrested for asking the question the kid did : the answer is he cannot. Whether it's "stirring" something or not, it is not legally "inciting" something under the Constitution.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Jack_Burton
09/29/09

@schweppes: It's amazing how few people really understand this. Thanks for helping to clarify!

This is the same fine line that lets Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh stay on the air - they have not directly advocated violence. Gordon Liddy almost did, back during the Clinton days, saying that listeners should kill federal agents (of the ATF). "Kill the sons of bitches." Was as close as he came to the direct statement. Bob Mohan said that Sarah Brady should be "put down." And there was a lot of controversy over it, but no legal action.

The threshold is indeed a very fine line. Which isn't to say that if someone were to act on these statements, that the speaker would not be civilly or criminally liable, after the fact. The huge difference in speech regarding the President is that along with Schenck v. US argument, you also have treason, and the interests of national security to contend with.
Reply

Edited by Jack_Burton at 09/29/09 1:41 PM Jack_Burton was starred Jack_Burton was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@Jack_Burton: Oh man, thank you, I really was shocked how controversial the idea that this was protected speech really was (inaccurate headline aside). And that's exactly it - - - just because we're protecting the right to say some words doesn't mean that we're impacting the fact that it's still entirely illegal to ACT on those words.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Jack_Burton
09/29/09

@schweppes: No problem! I'm a staunch advocate of free speech, but I am also an advocate of responsibility, and holding someone accountable for their actions need not be censorship in a free society.

Jailing people for speaking out is wrong. Jailing people for directly advocating harm to others is responsible.

Outlawing manipulated images, for example, is a slippery slope. Requiring a disclaimer that they have been altered, not so much.
Reply

Jack_Burton was starred Jack_Burton was unstarred

tiredfairy
09/29/09

@schweppes: Pretty much. I mean, I dislike that people say these things, and I may believe that this sort of thing does encourage violence...but under the Constitution, and by law, you can ask that question. Unpleasant? Yes. But that's the way Free Speech works. You have to support the right to say the stuff you like the least or it has no meaning.

Is it worthwhile to discuss how this might contribute to violence, or the environment it's creating? Yeah, absolutely. But if we start arresting people for saying things we don't like (even things as reprehensible as this) it creates a whole other problem.
Reply

Edited by tiredfairy at 09/29/09 2:01 PM tiredfairy was starred tiredfairy was unstarred

hfree
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Ah the Patriot Act. It's the 21st century version of the Alien and Sedition acts.

But yeah, it's the Secret Service's job to follow up on all threats, no matter how mundane. Just because you can say it doesn't mean that you can't then be questioned about it.
Reply

hfree was starred hfree was unstarred

midwestdesigner
09/29/09

@hfree: I am not a fan of the Patriot Act, but how does this apply to that? It seems more like the limitations on the First Amendment and the Secret Service's job than ... the Patriot Act.
Reply

midwestdesigner was starred midwestdesigner was unstarred

BettyCrockerPunkRocker
09/29/09

@hfree: I believe that the Secret Service would've been on your doorstep (and rightfully so) for threatening the president's life, no matter how obliquely, before the Patriot Act.

I think of it this way: The internet is the new town square. If you stand up on a soapbox in town square and ask random passersby if they think the president should be assasinated, you should soon expect a visit from men who talk into their shirtcuffs. You have no more right to do that than you do to slander, yell "Fire" in a theater, or incite a riot. Freedom does not mean there are no rules.

Disclaimer: I oppose the Patriot Act on the grounds that it is an illegal infringement on our Constitutional rights.
Reply

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny. promoted this comment

Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.
09/29/09

@BettyCrockerPunkRocker: Right because the First Amendment is lifted when the speech presents a clear and present danger to the United States. I would say a poll discussing whether or not Obama should die does that.
Reply

YankBoffin
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
This is why I NEVER accept friend requests from the Secret Service.
Reply

YankBoffin was starred YankBoffin was unstarred

NefariousNewt
09/29/09

@YankBoffin: You should -- you want them to be your friend
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

boobookitteh
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Why do I just know that when this guy's identity is exposed he'll be all 'it was just a joke.' and Faux news will be all on about how socialists have no sense of humor.

sigh.
Reply

NefariousNewt a.k.a. General Awesomesauce promoted this comment boobookitteh was starred boobookitteh was unstarred

NefariousNewt
09/29/09

@boobookitteh_is_a_Ranty_Pants: Mind you, when someone creates a "Should Rush Limbaugh Die?" poll, right-wingers and Faux News will be all over it, claiming the creator should be put to death or at least charged with sedition.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

Antrack
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Contrary to popular belief, 100% of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not protect speech that may incite violence or a riot (no screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater or leading a pitchfork-wielding mob to someone's house). It also does not protect libel. There are a couple of other narrow exceptions I can't recall right now.
Reply

NefariousNewt a.k.a. General Awesomesauce promoted this comment Antrack was starred Antrack was unstarred

brokenscope
09/29/09

@Antrack: Obscenity isn't protected, but it's very hard to get something declared obscene.
Reply

Little Green Frog (Wise Latina) promoted this comment brokenscope was starred brokenscope was unstarred

Percy
09/29/09

@Antrack: People seem to have forgotten the difference between "free speech" and "hate speech". The former is protected by the First Amendment; the latter is not.
Reply

Little Green Frog (Wise Latina) promoted this comment Percy was starred Percy was unstarred

NefariousNewt
09/29/09

@Antrack: In actuality, the First Amendment states that Congress shall not abridge the right to freedom of speech, in essence saying that the government cannot suspend the right. It does not say that speech cannot be legislated, as in the case of yelling "Fire!" The founders were clear to leave latitude, knowing that while the United States could not allow speech to be stifled, it could not also allow speech to be used as a weapon against the people, thereby risking the lives of citizens. Mind you, John Adams then took that idea too far when he was President.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

Ms Meghan
09/29/09

@Antrack: Or threatening to kill someone?
Reply

schweppes promoted this comment Ms Meghan was starred Ms Meghan was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@Ms Meghan: This wasn't threatening to kill someone, though - that's why the person isn't being arrested or charged or anything, but just questioned.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

vulcanized
09/29/09

@Antrack: Perhaps the most common mistake I've found with people crying free speech is the idea that all speech is protected everywhere. Sorry losers, but your speech is not protected on a privately owned and operated website. Nobody is obligated to keep your comments posted. Your speech is not protected in my house. If you say something I don't like, I can make you leave. I see so many people who post comments on websites that get censored or deleted and the writer gets in a huff about "Haven't you heard of the First Amendment?" I have indeed. Enough that I know what it means. You, apparently not so much.

Now, very summarized from my bar notes:
Not protected:
Incitement to illegal activity (hey, like suggesting somebody should assassinate the POTUS)
Obscenity (loosely defined)
Any and all child pornography
Intentionally misleading advertising
Advertising for illegal activities
Libel and slander
Government can also regulate time, place, and manner of speech as long as the regulations are content neutral.
Reply

vulcanized was starred vulcanized was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@vulcanized: Actually, this poll is NOWHERE near close enough to incitement of violence to be taken out from under the protection of the first amendment. He cannot be arrested for this. He's not being arrested. He's just being investigated.
Reply

Edited by schweppes at 09/29/09 12:48 PM schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Penny_Esq
09/29/09

@Percy: Actually, hate speech is protected unless it's going to incite listeners to imminent violence.
Reply

Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

ampersandparade
09/29/09

@schweppes: If this person had physically said this in a public place would it not be taken as an indication of someone attempting to provoke a reaction from people? The ability for someone to incite violence doesn't stem exclusively from their intentions, but also from how the things they say or do are interpreted. I get that you feel like this is no big deal, but people have been prompted to violence by far less. Whether he's arrested or not, hopefully you can at least agree that this is not the sort of behavior that American culture should be encouraging. A climate where people openly talk about the murder of the president, even in hypotheticals, as something to be treated in such a flippant and nonplussed manner can only encourage the sorts of moods that encourage eventual violence.

I like having personal freedoms as an American, but I have to say the last nine months have made me very uncomfortable as a citizen of this country. Seeing how willingly and openly people are discussing their hatred from the president, and their want for him to die or be murdered, is very scary. Bad begets bad, and if this sort of thing continues it will become all too commonplace for people to say these sorts of things anywhere, with the realistic possibility of dangerous outcomes.
Reply

Edited by ampersandparade at 09/29/09 1:16 PM ampersandparade was starred ampersandparade was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@ampersandparade: a) I've never said it's not a big deal. I am saying that this is protected under the first amendment. There is a difference. b) I do not think we should be encouraging this sort of behavior. But that does not mean that this speech should be criminal. c) I do not understand why you think I'm "nonplussed" or "flippant" about it. All I am saying is that it is protected speech. And it doesn't make me a crazy person, fyi.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@schweppes: Also, he absolutely could have said this in a public place. there's nothing necessarily different about facebook vs. 'the real world' and whether that speech is protected. Context matters, of course, and there are certain (very, very, very, very limited) situations where what the kid said in another context COULD fall outside the protections of the first amendment, but this doesn't even approach it.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

vulcanized
09/29/09

@schweppes: No, the poll itself isn't enough to qualify as inciting violence, but actually rallying people for an assassination probably would be.

If the Secret Service finds that this is a real threat, then it is not constitutionally protected. Hyperbole and saber-rattling are protected, but genuine threats are not. Watts v. United States requires there be a threat with the intent to carry out and that could be the case here. While it seems unlikely that the poll maker actually intended to kill Obama, it's simply too soon to say whether this poll is protected or not. I'm not sure how this will play with regard to people who voted "yes" in the poll.
Reply

vulcanized was starred vulcanized was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

@vulcanized: Yes, and when and if this kid organizes and plans a crowd to go to it, then he'll be arrested for that ACTION. The fact that the speech is protected doesn't mean that the underlying actions are. By NO means. Watts was about a 1917 federal statute about making threats to the president - which is why there is an analysis of what a threat is - - - which does not apply to a general first amendment discussion of incitement of violence. Even then, the speech there wasn't protected because of the fact that it was conditional - - - which, a poll merely asking the question is even FARTHER removed from any actual direct command/call to action than a hypothetical.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Hlaode
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
So what if it was tasteless, and the person who started to poll is more than likely a colossal douche. I can't think of any more harmless political expression than a facebook poll. Now a private business such a facebook certainly has the right to remove content that they find offensive, or looks bad for them in a blog post, chances are their terms of services lets them remove content for any reason at all. But does it warrant a secret services investigation? Or that the blogger makes it sound like a manhunt? What will happen to the guy when they find him?
Reply

Newsgirl Leslie promoted this comment Hlaode was starred Hlaode was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@Hlaode: I understand what you're saying, but my first thought when I read this story yesterday was to think about the man who killed all those women in a gym class recently. He had a blog where he spouted off what I'm sure lots of people thought were just douchey rants about women. But then he went and killed a bunch of women. With all the scary fervor around Obama right now, I think if you post something online like that you're fair game to be investigated.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

midwestdesigner
09/29/09

@Hlaode: It's not only tasteless and douchey, it's threatening a person. That's something the Secret Service kind of takes seriously.

Not to mention, things like hate speech and speech inciting dangerous action aren't protected.
Reply

lilbobbytables is a la-di-da feminist promoted this comment midwestdesigner was starred midwestdesigner was unstarred

librariesare4lovers
09/29/09

@Hlaode: This a bottom line issue. A threat made against the PTOS means you are going to get investigated. It doesn't matter if the threat (or this poll if you want to be specific) was written on a bathroom stall. The Secret Service doesn't sit around and qualify threats made against the president. There is no wiggle room here. And sorry but wondering about murdering the president is not political expression esp given the fact that presidential assassinations have occurred and could occur again. It's a very real danger that is taken very seriously.
Reply

bluebears
09/29/09

@Hlaode: I think the Secret Service investigates all threats on a politicians life. Regardless of the tone of said threat. They don't fuck around with that shit.
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

cait98
09/29/09

@Hlaode: It's illegal to threaten the President's life though. I think there is even a separate statute for it or something. I mean, true "threats" are criminal always, and not always prosecuted, but we take ones about the President a little more seriously.
Reply

Penny_Esq promoted this comment cait98 was starred cait98 was unstarred

Penny_Esq
09/29/09

@cait98: "Political hyperbole" is protected speech, though, and that includes threats against the president (per the Watts case, where the guy at the draft protest said "If they ever give me a rifle, the first person I want in my sights is LBJ." His conviction was overturned because his statement was deemed "political hyperbole," not a "true threat.")

The government has the right, however, to investigate the threat to determine whether it is a "true threat." Facebook's removal of the poll is not the same as the government limiting one's speech. Only if this person were charged with a crime for his/her poll could that person argue his/her First Amendment rights were unlawfully abridged.
Reply

Edited by Penny_Esq at 09/29/09 1:03 PM Penny_Esq was starred Penny_Esq was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Someone on NPR a few days ago said Obama gets 400 times the amount of death threats W got. I don't see why it's an issue to investigate what could be a threat? No one is taking away the poster's first amendment rights.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

girlleastlikelyto
09/29/09

@Newsgirl Leslie: It's 400% as many death threats, which is 4 times as many, not 400 times. It's still horrifying. Here's a news article about it: [www.telegraph.co.uk]
Reply

Newsgirl Leslie promoted this comment girlleastlikelyto was starred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@girlleastlikelyto: Thank you! And yeah, that is definitely still scary as crap.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

bluewine
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
This morning, someone called into the radio show I listen to on the way to work to talk about this. At first she sounded normal, but then she said that she would have voted "yes, if he takes away my health insurance". I live right outside of DC, where it's supposed to be very blue. What is wrong with people?!
Reply

bluewine was starred bluewine was unstarred

PinkSoxHat
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
I remember a few years ago, when I disagreed with what Bush was doing, including actually trampling on our civil liberties with the PATRIOT Act, I was shouted down and told to move to Canada if I didn't like it. Now people disagree with what the president is doing and call for his assasination? Who loves this country again? Who are the true patriots?
Reply

PinkSoxHat was starred PinkSoxHat was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@PinkSoxHat: Exactly. Anyone who disagreed with Bush was called a terrorist sympathizer and unAmerican and whatever else. I think Jon Stewart said it best on the Daily Show a while back that the republicans are confusing losing with tyranny.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

dj_chick
09/29/09

@PinkSoxHat: My own family would constantly tell me that "he's your president, and it don't matter if you don't like 'im, you gotta support 'im!" Years later, the tables are turned, and they sure as hell aren't "supporting 'im".
Reply

dj_chick was starred dj_chick was unstarred

bluetrain84
09/29/09

@dj_chick: Oh God, that's enraging.
Reply

bluetrain84 was starred bluetrain84 was unstarred

dj_chick
09/29/09

@bluetrain84: Yeah, things like that always make for awkward family holidays.
Reply

dj_chick was starred dj_chick was unstarred

midwestdesigner
09/29/09

@dj_chick: Can we start a support group for this now? Thanksgiving is just around the corner, and I'm not sure how I am going to cope.
Reply

PinkSoxHat promoted this comment midwestdesigner was starred midwestdesigner was unstarred

PinkSoxHat
09/29/09

@midwestdesigner: My strategy: sitting near the few other liberals and having a lot of wine nearby.
Reply

PinkSoxHat was starred PinkSoxHat was unstarred

midwestdesigner
09/29/09

@PinkSoxHat: But the Bush/Glenn Beck/Rush lovers are so loud! I need a farther corner.
Reply

midwestdesigner was starred midwestdesigner was unstarred

femputer
09/29/09

@PinkSoxHat: Oh, you liberal commies would drink that french punch! How's about an American brew? But not that Bud shit, now that the Belgians own it - that's practically French!!/sarcasm (lest I be mistaken for a birther nut; I'd sooner build a time machine and abort myself).
Reply

Edited by femputer at 09/29/09 12:13 PM femputer was starred femputer was unstarred

apollonia666
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Freedom of speech doesn't mean private businesses like Facebook (or Jezebel, for that matter) have to let any old crap in the world be posted on their site - it just means the *government* can't keep you from speech in the public square.
Reply

whynotshesaid promoted this comment apollonia666 was starred apollonia666 was unstarred

whynotshesaid
09/29/09

@apollonia666: Yep. I have this argument a lot. A web site is like a person's business or home; you no more have the right to post on it than you have the right to come into someone's home and shout abuse at them.
Reply

whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred

schweppes
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
And, please note, that this person isn't being arrested, or charged, or detained - - - just questioned to ensure the safety of the president.
Reply

schweppes was starred schweppes was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@schweppes: Thank you!
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

eleanorstrousers
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
I like to think this was posted by some idiot who is also the president of the Young Republicans at their prestigious school. And now they will have to list "incited assissination of the president" on their law school applications.

I don't think "Give me liberty or give me death," meant murder.
Reply

greengrey promoted this comment eleanorstrousers was starred eleanorstrousers was unstarred

greengrey
09/29/09

@eleanorstrousers: I had the same thought. Some private school poli sci major who's scared that the black man is going to take his inheritance.
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

morninggloria
09/29/09

In reply to The Funny Thing About The First Amendment Is...
Disgracebook.
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

newyorkette
09/29/09

@morninggloria: Facepalmbook.
Reply

morninggloria promoted this comment newyorkette was starred newyorkette was unstarred

morninggloria
09/29/09

@newyorkette: Facecrook.
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

Eleanor Ramilly
09/29/09

@morninggloria: Knowyourplacebook.
Reply

Eleanor Ramilly was starred Eleanor Ramilly was unstarred

DutchessOfDork
09/29/09

@morninggloria: OryxandCrakeBook
Reply

DutchessOfDork was starred DutchessOfDork was unstarred

Mary McCarthyite
09/29/09

@morninggloria: Failbook
Reply

Mary McCarthyite was starred Mary McCarthyite was unstarred

greeneyedfem
09/29/09

@DutchessOfDork: Pie v. Cakebook
Reply

Newsgirl Leslie promoted this comment greeneyedfem was starred greeneyedfem was unstarred

morninggloria
09/29/09

@Mary McCarthyite: WayOffBasebook
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

greengrey
09/29/09

@morninggloria: facegobbledygook
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@greeneyedfem: Cakebook FTW.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

Newsgirl
09/29/09

@greeneyedfem: Cakebook FTW.
Reply

Newsgirl was starred Newsgirl was unstarred

DuckDuckGoose
09/29/09

@morninggloria: SecretServiceatyourplacebook

Disappearwithoutatracebook (2001-2008)
Reply

morninggloria promoted this comment Edited by DuckDuckGoose at 09/29/09 11:02 AM DuckDuckGoose was starred DuckDuckGoose was unstarred

morninggloria
09/29/09

@DuckDuckGoose: Faceonawantedposterbook.
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

BettyCrockerPunkRocker
09/29/09

@morninggloria: In Your Facebook
Reply

♥ dosido☮ promoted this comment

BrutallyHonestBabes (aka Mrs. Sarah.of.a.Lesser.Hobbit)
09/29/09

@morninggloria: Book'EmBook
Reply

vulcanized
09/29/09

@morninggloria:
'BoutToGetMacedBook

And sister site to the big Disgracebook: MudOnYourFaceBook.
Reply

Edited by vulcanized at 09/29/09 12:53 PM vulcanized was starred vulcanized was unstarred

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment