Archive for the ‘ Censorship ’ Category

Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Dangerous Things

„With great freedom, comes great responsibility“
(paraphrasing Spiderman and… Voltaire[1])

During the past few weeks we’ve witnessed violent riots in several Muslim countries, protesting against a film that (to their opinion) insults Mohammed, their prophet.

The discussion of these incidents in western media and politics as well as on social media platforms was a mix of two othering-strategies:
On the one hand occidentalistic (in the post-colonial meaning) opinions and world-views, often including many prejudices about and generalizations of Muslim and/or Arab culture.
On the other hand, there was a clear dissociation from the creators of the film and its content.

For a long time, I found it very hard to constitute my opinion on the matter, until a survey in Germany made me realize that we might be discussing the wrong issue. In the survey, 47% of the participants supported banning the video. That is, 47% chose against blasphemy on the cost of setting (another) precedent for a limitation of free speech.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech cannot facilitate themselves

They require (among others!) a society which enables marginal (and sometimes extreme) opinions to be heard but at the same time is also sensitive to the opinions and emotions of others.
The former without the latter is like a “democracy”, in which the majority decides but the rights of the minority are not protected. That is, no democracy.

Free speech isn’t really free if the opinions of the privileged can ascend the opinion of the unprivileged/discriminated. It isn’t free if the privileged can say what they want without considering the consequences for others, less privileged persons.
This applies especially then, when a discourse crosses cultural, national, and geographical borders.

Which brings me to the next question:

Should content, which is published knowing that violent reactions will follow, be treated similar to content that explicitly incite violence (such as hate speech)?
(a similar question was also discussed by Padraig Reidy)

I say no. Maybe because I support radical free speech, maybe because I fear a dystopian future of the kind Ray Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit 451 (a book-less future, where the firemen’s task is to burn libraries together with their owner. A future, which was created gradually by limiting free speech in order to protect the feelings of different groups).

But that still wasn’t the main question. The main question is a meta-question about our society and its free speech. As I said in the beginning:

With great freedoms, comes great responsibility

Our society, especially in western democracies, urgently needs to start reflecting about its alleged free speech. Because granting free speech without educating about the power of speech, its possible consequences (for the self and for others), the respect for other opinions and beliefs etc. is not creating freedom –  it’s creating power without responsibility.

The discussion of the film and its violent results isn’t a discussion about the creators of the film (them) and the participants of the violent riots (again, them).
It’s a discussion about us, about our society.
A society that constantly produces kinds of speech, which cross the line of how to express legitimate criticism and which try to influence (an already problematic) discourse by knowingly inciting disrespectful violence instead of respectful dialog.

Free speech per se isn’t a moral superiority, it’s the way we use it that defines our morals.

[1] Voltaire. Jean, Adrien. Beuchot, Quentin and Miger, Pierre, Auguste. “Œuvres de Voltaire, Volume 48″. Lefèvre, 1832

2012
10/03
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Opinion
Information Ethics
TAGS





5 comments

heilTunes

After Apple removing Nazi music from iTunes, I’ve decide to put my own liberalism to the test and try and solve my inner conflict with the case: to which extent should I support freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, when the opinion goes against the mere existence of me as a person, my family and many of my friends; and its expression, which is being done through the most divine of arts – music.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea… an apple

Before doing so, some background information is needed in order to understand the situation Apple found itself in. Regarding freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, there are two cultural spaces, where those play a major role and which embody a different approach towards them – USA and Europe. They are of course not the only ones, but as two hegemonic cultures and the ones that are involve in this case, I will address them.

In the US, freedom of expression is seen as a value of overriding importance. It means that when it comes to issues of privacy or propaganda (just to name a few) vs. freedom of expression, freedom of expression will usually win.

In European countries on the other hand, as much as freedom of expression is important, other issues (such as privacy or restraining propaganda) are often seen as more crucial for society and individuals, and therefore have the upper hand in many conflicts.

It is now clear that Apple, as a US based company, which localizes its services and offers them in other countries, has found itself between a rock and a hard place. But Apple is not the first and certainly not the last to find itself in a similar situation.

Distinction of controversial material

That being said, I needed a distinction of what can be called ‘Nazi music’ and which kinds of it are legitimate to be offered as a (information-)product for the consumer (let’s say, an iTunes user).

To do this, I distinguished between three levels, which can make a musical piece being called ‘Nazi music’:

[1] Creator level – a creator, which is known to be holding this certain political opinion.

In this case my position is very clear, the artist has the right to hold his political opinions and express them. As long as those are not being embodied in his or her music, any denial to distribute it (=censor it) is an unethical and illegitimate sanction, which although indirectly, violate his or her freedom of opinion and expression.

[2] Symbolic level – symbols such as a Swastika on the cover or Musical elements, which are identified with National-Socialism, appear in the piece.

With symbols the situation gets more complicated. The use of symbols in art doesn’t always mean to praise what they stand for, they can also be used as critic and even degradation, or in some cases contain a whole new and different meaning.

Therefore, when a controversial symbol is the issue, one should carefully take a look at the context in which it appears, come into dialog with the artist when needed and possibly add some supplementary information to avoid any doubt.

A rush judgment or automated procedures (for example an algorithm, which deletes any content with Swastikas) may be an economical solution for big vendors, who have to go through large quantities of content on a daily basis. However, automated filtering may be contra-productive not just in terms of freedom of opinion or expression, but also may cause an opposite result by, for example, deleting content which criticize national-socialism while using some of its elements.

[3a] Content level – implied messages in the piece (lyrics).

Art is full of implied messages; in some cases it is all about those messages (take the Beatles for example), but what happens if they contain propaganda or other controversial material?

Here again a room for discussion should be opened: What part of the public recognizes it as propaganda, and why? Exactly what message is implied? Are there other interpretations? What is the artist’s official position to those interpretations? What relation does this piece have to other works (of the artist self and of other)?

[3b] Content level – explicit messages in the piece.

Also when the messages are explicit, the discussion is not to be avoided. Important issues are to be addressed, such as: What messages are being transferred and who do they address (e.g. social, gender or racial groups)? If and to what extent do they cross the fine line between freedom of expression and intolerable propaganda?

In both [3a] and [3b] other aspects are also to be taken into consideration such as: the social and legal frame in which the piece appears (e.g. a German, US or Chinese shop), the target audience and other audiences that could be exposed to it (minors or specific social groups).

In both cases, a rush decision of censorship due to “offensiveness” is often a quick and even economical solution, but much less productive than a public debate.

Conclusions

In the broader sense, I believe that this distinction is applicable for many other issues besides music. Also in literature, cinema, visual art, fashion and many more, controversial material such as propaganda, racism and sexism can find expression. But there are many ways to fight it without censoring it (and thus violating the creator’s and consumer’s freedom of opinion and expression). A productive dialog, offering contradicting pieces (for example a music piece or a play, which fight prejudice instead of reproducing it) and an organized boycott or demonstration are some examples of what society can do. But an official censorship is not the tool.

Intermediates (like iTunes or Youtube) often find themselves in difficult situations: cultural differences (as noted above), users distributing/consuming controversial contents and other users refusing to tolerate it, different legal frameworks (as in cases of copyrights) etc.

For those intermediates it is not a matter of supporting freedom of opinion and expression, it’s business. There are economical repercussions for having to screen content. And, if screening takes place, will it be human personnel (and who?!) or by an automated process, or leave it to the users to report problematic content. But it is also an economical consideration, how their public image is to be affected and what implication this could have on their business (for example users moving to a competitor).

And surprisingly enough, a public image of supporting freedom of opinion and expression at all costs is not always the best one for business because not taking measures against something, also in the name of neutrality and freedom of expression, is often misinterpreted as supporting the content.

The Horst Wessel Song

And back to our current matter: the piece ‘Horst-Wessel-Lied’ was the anthem of the Nazi Party between 1930-45, between 1933-45 the Nazis made it a co-national anthem of Germany, its lyrics contain explicit National-Socialist messages and it is illegal in Germany and Austria (except for educational purposes). Therefore, it complies with all of the above described levels and has also an illegal characteristic within Germany and Austria.

Regarding these facts and the delicacy that this content has in the German society I certainly do support the removal of this particular song from iTunes, but in the same breath I will emphasize that my opinion pertains to this song alone. Other ‘Nazi’ content should be examined in its specific context.

I will conclude with a wise saying, often incorrectly associated with Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) but actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

2011
02/09
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Opinion
Intermediary Censorship
TAGS



3 comments

WikiLOCs

Libraries are institutions with important values regarding information. They have their codes of ethics, which are derived from the broad field of information ethics and varies between countries.

35 Countries have official professional codes of ethics for libraries and the US is of course one of them, with American Library Association (ALA) codes of ethics.

And I quote the 2nd and 4th points:

“We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.”

“We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions.”

With these values as the principles shaping its world-view, the information-society was quite shocked as the Library of Congress (LoC, the national library of the USA), which plays a major role in the ALA, has started filtering WikiLeaks on December 3rd. The filtering applies within the library – for its users and its staff.

As the library officially stated:

“The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents’ classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.”

Librarians around the country called the ALA to condemn this move and library users made some interesting suggestions, like the one that the user “mardish” posted in Reddit:

“So I’ve got this idea to print out the Wikileak Cables and put them in a binder and donate it to my local library. Think this could become a movement? […] If it’s in a library, and the federal government tries to take down Wikileaks, they’ll have to take down the libraries as well, but I firmly believe that if any organization would be willing to support this cause, it’d be the librarians.”

Censorship and libraries as a federal agency– a stress ratio

So is it or is it not censorship?

Generally speaking, YES. Denying access to any kind of information, especially one, which is openly accessible (on the internet for example), is censorship. Furthermore, denying access to WikiLeaks at times of an ongoing public debate on the matter is not just “plain old censorship” it is a violation of freedom of opinion and going against the people’s information literacy and information autonomy (other issues, on which libraries work very hard), thus harming democracy and the people’s right to take part in it.

Regarding the fact, that the library workers are being most affected from the filtering, the contradiction between the codes of ethics cited above and the act of filtering WikiLeaks is obvious.

But in this case, the answer to this question gets a bit more complicated.

The LoC, as a federal agency, had to comply with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget instructions, saying that “[… f]ederal agencies collectively, and each federal employee and contractor individually, are obligated to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, as well as to protect the integrity of government information technology systems.”

The issues of national security, secrecy of governmental documents and government transparency were already discussed within the Drawer2.0 coverage of the WikiLeaks case. That’s why I will address this point differently in the case of LoC.

A library is not like any other federal agency. As an institution, whose primary goal is to create access to information, uphold censorship, collect and preserve cultural assets etc., the library is a federal agency in order to insure its independency from other factors (market factors for example) and to have the law by its side. Only in this way, libraries (above all a national library) are able to fulfill their mission.

When saying that library should make information accessible, the information addressed is all information, which is publically available (no matter in which form or medium). Secret government documents (i.e. secret government information – let us separate the information from the medium document) are of course not publically available and thus are not being collected and set for the public to read by the national library.

But once this information was made public by someone, it is information, which is publically available and libraries DO have the right to give access to this information. There should not be a consideration of form or medium, that is to say – if information is still in a “raw” state of a document posted on the web or already processed by a journalist in order to present its essence and then published in a newspaper (or on the paper’s website).

It is unimaginable (for those of us, who are used to have free speech and no censorship) that a library will deny access to a newspaper or its website. It should be the same considering WikiLeaks.

So how I see it, using the fact that a library is a federal agency in order to enforce censorship is no other than abusing the state-library relations for a goal which is completely contradictory to its original one.

** This post is a part of the Drawer2.0 alternative coverage of the WikiLeaks case: What the media doesn’t tell you and which issues are really at stake. Click here to read more.

2010
12/19
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
Library Values
WikiLeaks
TAGS


3 comments

The WikiWitch-Hunt

…or what officially called Intermediary Censorship (1, 2).

The term intermediary censorship was coined by Ethan Zuckerman, in a very interesting ONI-publication named Access Controlled, which handles the strategies of governments around the world to shape and control cyberspace.

The situation today is that the internet is almost entirely privately held. For us as users it means that although the normative belief of having a (cyber-)space, in which we have a protected free speech, the fact is that we are always bound to terms of use, which are written by the service providers. The boundaries set by these terms of use can reflect social norms and law frameworks in the country or region, where the service provider is located, as well the service provider’s financial interests or personal world-view.

Of course the service providers have the right to do so and we as users have the choice whether to use those services or not, but the main issue here is to which extent can we rely on privately owned spaces (i.e. services) for us to carry out our free speech? Especially if those services have a lot going-on on their agenda before free speech…

The last few weeks we have had a clear example of how this situation can get completely messed up, and yes, I mean the way WikiLeaks and its activists are being hunted down in all possible fronts.

Of course each issue from the ones I am about to mention has an official explanation (e.g. violation of the Amazon terms of use), but when looking at the big picture, adding the timing and sequence of the different occurrences, it is not just that these explanations seem to be farfetched, but it is clear that these are a result of political pressure and lobbying, in which explicit threats are not to be excluded.

Some of the highlights

(please keep in mind – what you read here is just the tip of the iceberg, there have been and probably will be many more):

  • Amazon stopped hosting WikiLeaks’ website due to violation terms of use. This happened directly after being contacted by US Senator Joe Lieberman.
  • French hosting company OVH, to which WikiLeaks moved after Amazon stopped hosting the website, took WikiLeaks’ server offline in response to pressure from the French government.

Those cases raise two concerning issues:

First, as state above, to which extent can we rely on private companies to protect free speech?

Second is the worrying phenomenon of governments, which are normally supportive of free speech, not just trying to take WikiLeaks out but doing it outside of their authorities. It is clearly defined that if someone is to decide whether a website (or some of its content) should go down, it is the court of law. Not the government and especially not one politician (remember Joe Lieberman?) or political-party.

Those institutions have too the right not to give their services to certain clients. But again there are several concerning issues that are to be raised:

First are the clear double standards. Ku-Klux-Klan is just one of the horrible institutions who continue to receive services from Visa and Mastercard, PayPal probably has also a few on its list. So how could those companies claim they have stopped their service to WikiLeaks because they don’t support illegal activity (although no court of law found WikiLeaks illegal yet), but still support institutions, which are openly calling for racism, discrimination, violence etc.?!

Second is the right of a client to do as he/she wishes with his/her money. The clients (and not the financial institutions!) are the ones to decide if a contribution to WikiLeaks is ethical or not and it is their money, which is being contributed. This applies also to the Swiss bank – a bank does not have anything to do with the intended purpose of the money in an account, let alone a legal defense of a person in court. Let us not forget that the accusations are for a sexual crime and (allegedly) don’t have anything to do with WikiLeaks. But the intention is clear – closing on Julian Assange.

Having three major financial institutions in the (neo-liberal) US and one in (the neutral) Switzerland surrendering to political lobbying is a frightening fact. It shows us that if governments are not able to take down an institution that they don’t like within their legitimate authority (in WikiLeaks’ case – official censorship in the US or Europe is possible only with a court order), they are still able to financially suffocate this institution and its activists.

Outlook

The actions taken by the US government and others (who had to play along?) have clear watch and beware tactics. These can make one wonder…

  • What are the US and other governments so afraid of? What else could WikiLeaks unveil?
  • Is it so controversial that they’re willing to sacrifice their support of free speech and principles of democracy for it?
  • Why are they so anxious to frighten potential followers of WikiLeaks from taking its place (if and when it will come down)?
  • Doesn’t it create a contra-productive affect, making people more interested in the real revelations on WikiLeaks (and not the government-gossip)? Making people more supportive of WikiLeaks’ struggle? Making the media and public more critical?
  • Or is it just a kind of psychological compensation for the US government, demonstrating its power after being embarrassed publically (once again)?

** This post is a part of the Drawer2.0 alternative coverage of the WikiLeaks case: What the media doesn’t tell you and which issues are really at stake. Click here to read more.

2010
12/12
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
Information Ethics
Intermediary Censorship
Politics
WikiLeaks
TAGS
2 comments

You have the right to remain silent

According to FAIFE, statistics on ONI and others, every fourth person on the planet lives under censorship. This means that 1,717,275,000 out of 6,869,100,000 (estimation taken from Wikipedia, 17. September 2010) people do not have the freedom to express themselves, to build their own opinion in matters concerning them or other matters, or to have a free and equal access to information (which is not manipulated or first chosen suitable by others). Due to the interdependency between all of these elements, I will continue and use the term free speech to address them as a single unit.

When including surveillance, which takes place even in many countries in which free speech is being protected by constitution or law and no (official) censorship is being done (like the US and the European Union… did someone say “the free world”?), almost each and every world citizen is being controlled. And just to make things clear – I do see surveillance as a sort of censorship or control mechanism that affects ones handling of information and therefore a violation of free speech, but this is a subject for another essay.

At this point I also won’t address the global digital divide and the fact that citizens of many countries just don’t have the infrastructure or financial possibility to access much information in the first place.

Those facts make me wonder about the term HUMAN RIGHT being used often in the context of free speech and the term PRIVILEGE, which has an interesting relation to rights.

Yeah, Right.

The main problem with rights is that for them to take hold, they need not only to be declared, but also anchored within an enforced codex, like a constitution, law or other kinds of regulations.

Many declarations of rights already exist, like the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but they also have their Achilles’ heel – the “Should” principle. There are too many “shoulds” and “shalls” within those declarations. Each society (-> country -> government) can adapt those rights how it sees fit.

There are many cultural, historical and social differences between countries and it is clear that the UDHR (for example) is a strict western perspective. And let’s face it, the west needed two world wars, to colonize and then de-colonize almost the entire world and at least one big economic crisis (and that’s just in the late 19th and 20th century) to get to human rights. So expecting the rest of the world’s cultures to apply all those “shoulds” and “shalls” is not exactly practical.

Just look at the clashes between the US perspective, who view freedom of speech as utmost important (the 1st amendment), and the perspective more common in European countries, for them there is nothing more important than privacy, even at cost of free speech. Those clashes occur more and more frequently in the age of Web2.0, where the boarders between free speech and protection of privacy are becoming blurred and the geographical boarders, which used to separate between cultures, don’t play a role in exchange of information anymore, because it is done in the all-embracing cyberspace.

So if our “free” worlds can’t agree on minor issues like explicit videos posted on youtube, facebook’s privacy policy or Google search results, I’m hardly surprised when cultures that are considerably different from the western ones, don’t line up so easily with some things that really matter. Human rights for example.

What is a privilege?

Wikipedia says: “[…]In a broader sense, “privilege” can refer to special powers or de facto immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth. Privilege of this sort may be transmitted by birth into a privileged class or achieved through individual actions.” (1. October 2010).

So we’ve got one major difference already – Rights are de jure and privileges are de facto.

But I like Peter Li’ir Key’s definition a lot more (please do take the time to read it; it’s not one of those feel-free-to-ignore-me links). There a few parts of this notion to privileges, which can be extremely relevant in the context of free speech:

  • it is privilege that creates its corresponding oppression, and then there is a feedback loop.
  • privilege (and it’s corresponding oppression) are not marked by intention, they are marked by effect.
  • partaking in your privilege is to participate in the corresponding oppression.
  • there is no escape from your privilege.
  • privilege is marked by absences.
  • having privilege is rarely an intentional or conscious act.

Try repeating those sentences out loud, using “freedom of speech” instead of “privilege” and “censorship” instead of “oppression”.

I will add that having a right someone else doesn’t, is a privilege.

Free Privileged Speech

To sum up my argument, I believe that free speech is a privileged speech. It shouldn’t be and it doesn’t have to be, but currently it is.

This means that ¾ of the people in the world have the privilege to express themselves, the privilege to build their own opinion in matters concerning them or other matters, the privilege to have a free and equal access to information (which is not manipulated or first chosen suitable by others).

The dimensions of privileges like free speech or free and equal access to information are becoming clear when considering how they are being embodied later on:

It’s economical – the more access to information you have, the more you can nurture your education, choose yourself a profession, expose yourself to markets beyond the ones physically near you etc.

It’s personal – you can develop yourself as a person, read and enrich your knowledge and mind with the information that interest you (music, books, movies and so on).

It’s spiritual – you can choose your world view, life philosophy, and even religion. Furthermore, you can choose not to have any or decide for yourself how to comprehend and practice your belief (and that’s an informational emancipation that could only be dreamt about until the 20th century).

It’s political and democratic – you can build your own political opinion from a variety of (politically) independent sources and discuss it at any time, oppose your government, demonstrate and take part in changes.

It’s social – you can openly communicate, share your thought and opinions, whatever they are, with your friends, family, and complete strangers. Or do it discreetly without having concern about being followed or watched.

Many of us enjoy those privileges and see them as their basic rights. Many of us don’t.

Think about it the next time you express yourself.

2010
10/08
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
Freedom of Expression
Information Ethics
Information Freedom
Politics
TAGS
Leave a comment

Fahrenheit WWW

Apparently Australia is joining a growing list of western / industrialized / democratic / liberal (*delete whichever is inapplicable) countries, which are starting to line up with China and censor its civilians’ Web access (a complete overview here). Not just that – the government is also going to keep track of what people are doing on the internet, because, like the German ‘Piraten Partei’ (a political party) said in their campaign, “you are a terrorist”.

I don’t know what horrifies me the most – that the government can access all of my information flow, including private information like emails, chat history, Skype calls etc. or that it can decide which information is suitable for me and which is not.

Today I’m going to discuss the latter.

The logic of censorship

Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and sociologist, argued that “This interdiction [censorship] is thought to take three forms: affirming that such a thing is not permitted, preventing it from being said, denying that it exists.” (The history of sexuality: The will to knowledge, 1976).

Although in some extremist countries things are also prevented from being said, in some they are prevented of being heard, read or watched. Australia is now at the stage of declaring some information as “not permitted”, the prevention is soon to come.

But is denying the existence of certain information, “bad” and harmful as it might be, really the way to deal with it? Of course not! I’ve already discussed my position to this matter in the post “Robin Who?!”.

Denial-mechanisms are a lot stronger than what one can imagine. When you deny existence – you are also preserving other existences.

Our society has different norms, they provide us stability, a status quo, something that governments have an explicit interest in keeping. When those norms are being challenged, there is a threat of structural change (best case scenario) or chaos (worst case scenario), and of course that governments don’t want that to happened, so it’s better to quiet up everything (and EVERYONE) that exceeds the norm.

Just think about it: are you Caucasian? 30-50 years old? middle class? heterosexual? married? male? educated? belong to the majority-religion in your country of residence?

If you said no, or even just hesitated, it’s you.

And as China proves us, like many other countries in the past, controlling your norms and eliminating structural threats is good for business (yes, I mean money).

Just one reservation

Despite and because of my (sometimes extreme) liberal opinions, I still think there is one kind of information that should be prevented, not only from consumption, rather from it’s mere production. That is information, which requires exploitation or abuse of other people in order to produce it.

What for example? Child pornography, probably the most damned kind of information running through the internet, whose prevention I can only support. Because, if we take a look back on information literacy and it’s social and moral dimension, it is not a matter of educating “information consumers” to view this information critically, it’s a matter of using ones power supremacy to exploit someone else and to harm him, in order to produce a desired “information-product”.

A book burns at 451°F (232°C)

Long before the internet, Ray Bradbury described in his novel “Fahrenheit 451” (1953) a future world in which books are completely outlawed and firemen’s task (since houses are completely burn-proof) is to burn books together with the houses they’re found in (in some occasions, also the residents of the house, the books’ readers). It all started with a few books, but their number kept growing until all books were excluded.

Putting Bradbury’s amazing observation of the western society aside, I’ve read the book with an overwhelming sense of Déjà vu.

“I know this!” I said to myself.

And then I thought about the internet.

2010
06/15
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Censorship
China
Freedom of Expression
Information Freedom
1 comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: