Do we really value free speech anymore?
Modern day people living in a liberal society would like to think that they have freedom of speech. But as many of us will understand, freedom always comes at a cost.
I have spoken in public about controversial topics like the reasons for murder, the idea of transgenders, gay marriage, reasons for war, how different races and cultures have different (and sometimes conflicting) values.
But when I do, some person usually walks up to me and whichever friend I am talking to (In a private conversation), they interrupt me mid sentence and say something like "I don't agree with what you are saying, could you stop speaking?"
This is the price. We can only think what we want to think but if we verbally express our ideas or beliefs, people will try to shut us down. For the crime of having a different opinion.
People have gone to jail just for hurting peoples feelings, a form of so called "emotional assault". Back in the old days, you would have been told to "toughen up" which is something I believe we should do.
Often we hear stories on the mainstream news of "far right" speakers or "alt-right" speakers being banned from college and university campuses. Or a violent demonstration against the speakers and listeners.
This is a big problem. Young people are being indoctrinated and led like sheep to further a political agenda that they themselves don't understand. Rather than listening to what the person says, they listen to what their friends say the speaker said.
This is an example of "Chinese whispers" gone wrong. No body should listen to what their friends say just because their friends said it. I never trust what my friends say, I think about it and research it before I come to a conclusion. But most people don't, they have this false sense of trust that begets ignorance.
So do we really have free speech? Or is free speech just an outdated idea?
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
28 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The First Amendment only says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”. It was never intended to protect people from the consequences of their speech. People have always, and will always, react poorly to speech they don’t like, and that is a part of free speech.
skado
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
11
Couldn't agree more..I have been in protests since the 70's..it's not that people want you to "Shut Up" , people want you to Know that your speech will no longer be tolerated by them..this happened in Boston a few times recently at a "Free Speech" rallies. It was a cover for Nazi, KKK and White Supremacists..at the 1st one ( a week after Chancillorville) 100,000 counter protesters marched to the rally..it was an amazing show of Solidarity & "Witnessing". As my Mom said You made your bed, now Sleep in it.
The rise of glorifying hate speech is frightening. When anyone wants to speak in a way that any public will hear, there should be debate. Give both or however-many sides. Never let just one view hang there without rebuttal. Trump's rallies are the most unAmerican thing that he began. That and spewing childish garbage instead of debating.
When a college decides not to host a political speech, that does not limit the speakers freedom of speech. They are under no obligation to provide a platform for anyone to speak from. It's not like the college is putting a gag order on the speaker. Colleges can freely choose which speakers they feel are worthwhile for their students. I haven't been given the opportunity to speak at a college but you don't see me getting butt hurt and saying that my freedom of speech has been infringed upon.
Also, people asking you to stop speaking does not limit your free speech. They are using their free speech to tell you to shut up. You are free to continue talking and they are free to continue telling you to stop.
RoboGraham
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
5
That's a really good point.
I am mainly talking about how when a guest speaker is invited to a college by the students and once they arrive to talk, ignorant selfish protesters walk inside and start shouting and screaming to shut someone down because they don't agree with them.
Jordan Peterson who has a PhD in clinical psychology was invited and ready to speak when people with signs and megaphones came in and started screaming nonsense. They weren't invited but they came and ruined everyone else's time.
@Lancer Yeah that is very rude. The way to shut down people you don't agree with is to have a civil discussion and out debate them.
So, we are dealing with this now in my area. Richard Spencer is making the rounds demanding a forum to speak at Michigan’s college campuses. Because they are public universities, receiving taxpayer funding, there is some argument that refusing him is “the government” restricting his right to speech. On the other hand, many students feel that campus is their home and they should not be forced to host someone who advocates treating them as less than fully human.
What these young people don’t understand is that the protection of free speech exists specifically to protect unpopular speech. oppressors quickly co-opt the language of oppression for themselves and claim to be victims of discrimination. But if we fail to protect ALL speech, it is the voices of the minorities, the oppressed, that will ultimately be silenced.
We see this already with religious folks claiming that speech or policies protecting the rights of, for example, transgender people, are tantamount to hate speech against their religious beliefs. So we must protect the right to say terrible, hateful things in order to protect the right to say that they are terrible and hateful.
@RoboGraham Yeah well you're welcome to, but I don't think I'll bother trying having a civil discussion such as debating the validity of my existence with ignorant, bigoted transmisogynists such as Milo Yiannopoulos. And he doesn't have a "right" to make speeches at campuses any more than I do. Both he and I are able to exercise our right to free speech. To hell with hateful bigots, though.
Legally, yes.
Socially, no.
I really don't understand why you'd want to shut down someone with whom you do not agree (a la cancelling speaking engagements, violent protests of lectures, etc.). Wouldn't it serve your purposes better to let them make their terrible arguments, so you can later pick them apart, use their points to make a case for how ignorant, delusional, racist, whatever, they are?
If your enemy is bringing his own rope to the gallows, why stop him?
stinkeye_a
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
5
It doesn't work like that in America anymore. People are immune to facts, reason, and logic. Platform = followers. Trump brought a whole fuckin' Home Depot's worth of rope to that bitch and his followers just played Double Dutch with it.
@JeffMurray Yeah. 
I don't get people. They don't act right.
Colleges are just one place where you are supposed to be challenged and learn more than you know. Damn right we need to know what others believe, but make it a debate. Let others rebut, discuss.
If you want to know who is in control then look at who you don't dare joke about.
Gabriel
Level 4
Jan 30, 2018
4
Freedom of speech is limited to exclude threats or promotion of violence. When someone promotes illegal or violent action one should be stopped.
As far as the problem about speaking out to controversial topics go I have been there many times. Just because someone doesn't want to hear something does not remove your right to say something. If it is in the public sphere then one has the right and the opposer should be the one to leave. If it a private venue than one's rights are limited.
With all the controversy over white supremacists rights it all boils down to what one wants to hear. To me the best way to deal with vitriol is to walk away and ignore it.
JackPedigo
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
4
Promoting illegal action should not be stopped just because it is illegal. Laws are not perfect and legal does not equate to good.
@NothinnXpreVails True but who who gets to decide what is legal and what is not and what rules to obey and which ones we can disregard. We as a society should decide.
I find it fascinating when people are gung ho about laws and crime, yet they can’t signal for a lane change. It is the nature of human hypocrisy and perceived authority, not to mention that I never granted someone authority (with exception of employers) over me, that I don’t really consider myself as lawful. “Because we said so” doesn’t work for me. @JackPedigo
@NothinnXpreVails Good, then everybody gets to disobey the laws they don't like. And where does that get us? Right where we are now. When we go to everybody for themselves then civilization is lost and we have anarchy and everybody loses.
I agree to a point. If humans ever established a far superior form of government that was actually just and free, that’d be great. But that is not what we have. @JackPedigo
And how would we ever get there when everyone gets to do as they please. Remember the adage "your freedoms ends where my nose begins" . An ideal government cannot be created from anarchy. @NothinnXpreVails
@NothinnXpreVails 'Form of government' and 'just and free' are mutually exclusive. Having a governing body necessarily places restrictions on freedoms.
I’m not intending to promote anarchy, but what we have currently isn’t working. @JackPedigo
@NothinnXpreVails Good. Be aware I am just as upset by what is happening and am prepared to do what it takes. But it serves no one to go to jail or harm innocent people (the guilty ones are another matter).
@JeffMurray I disagree. We are not the old Soviet Union, or some Fascist government. Our system of government has us to allow freedoms others only dream of (like the one right here). What puts restrictions on freedoms are natural restrictions and too many competing needs.
@JackPedigo Citing an example of a country that has more restrictive laws in no way invalidates the fact that a governing body, regardless of how permissive, necessarily places restrictions on freedoms. Our freedom of speech is restricted in the areas of speech that incites violence and danger. Our freedom of religion is restricted by our government's willingness to acknowledge your religion as real. Our freedom of assembly is restricted in cases of public safety. Our right to bear arms is restricted in the level of destructive capabilities of said arms. You can look at any single freedom/right we have and find limits to them.
Agreed @JackPedigo
@JeffMurray As I have said above about freedom and noses. The problem most people miss is that freedoms and population density work against one another. This is my reference to a "natural" restriction. Imagine if our country had the same population as China (1.2 B to our 330M). We both share roughly the same area with China having less arable land space. How many freedoms would we have then?
@JackPedigo You're proving my point for me. Explain to me a system of governing for even the smallest population that wouldn't necessarily restrict freedoms. You can't do it. Even if there was only one family per square mile, any time they would meet there would need to be rules restricting freedom for the sake of harmony.
@JeffMurray The way I see it freedoms always involve a trade off. I have a friend who doesn't ant anyone telling him what to do, when or where. Unfortunately, this freedom comes at an expense, finding work, housing, food and on. So there is really no such thing as total freedom - except when you die.
So if you have 2 people, is that government?
@JackPedigo
Regardless of what your friend wants, he is either abiding the reduction in his freedoms, or all of his freedom will likely be taken away.
If they have a governing body, (which is the way I stated it). But if you mean only two people, and no others to enforce any rules, basically all you have is a gentleman's agreement, which either person could technically break at any time.
If you don't agree with what I'm saying, make a cogent argument to counter it. I'll hear you out. Don't try to stop me from presenting my side, though. Rational discourse is the best path to progress.
IntellectualRN
Level 6
Jan 31, 2018
3
absolutely! thank you.
Speech has always been limited. Everyone knows the classic example of not being allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater.
And as I'm sure others have pointed out, hate speech should be one of the limits of free speech.
ChestRockfield
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
2
People have the right to free speech However, colleges and universities, and the students and the faculty, have the right to decided who comes to speak to them.
Rudy1962
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
4
Very true. @TheInterlooper
I have no value in 'mud slinging'...even if it is free apeech! But, I guess with the rain, you will have some stormy weather!
Freedompath
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
2
If you want to find out how free you are, find out who you're allowed to criticise. As soon as there's a group you're not allowed to criticise, or if you're frowned on for criticising a group, you're not completely free.
The dead giveaway? Islam.
"Islamophobia" is bandied around wherever you go as a meaningless phrase. If you quote a Koran verse ironically, you're Islamophobic. If you point out the simple facts of the atrocities committed in Islamic nations, you're Islamophobic.
The Islamic world has us by the balls with a knife they're only pretending to have.
JosephHarrison
Level 7
Jan 30, 2018
2
Many don’t appear to understand that a person can support a Muslim’s right to believe as they wish and yet publicly criticize that belief. Blocking speakers from universities because they have a different perspective is flat out wrong. If nobody agrees then few will attend and the talk will be a flop but I wish they wouldn’t prohibit folks from speaking.
I strongly reject your premise that "quoting the Quaran makes you islamaphobic" etc. Because that makes no sense to me, the babble is just as full of "kill them all " crapola.
However, i respect your right to say it
There are plenty of groups that you'd be straight demonized for criticizing. Can you imagine the kind of hell someone would catch for shit-talking the mentally handicapped? Do they have an imaginary knife to our collective metaphorical balls?
for that reason i have quite some trouble with so-called "Political Correctness". we as society have to thank this bullshit for growing cowardice of expression.
@gearl, as i understand it, nobody was blocked or prohibited from speaking. the students exercised their freedom of choice to not invite specific speakers. cool with me.
@walklightly Quite a few ex-Muslims have had their speaking engagements cancelled by universities. When a Muslim-student group has enough clout to stop free speech, it to me, is the opposite of what universities stand for. If groups of evangelical students could block all speakers that talked about evolution or blocked Harris, or Dawkins or someone who gave a talk about why Scientology is wrong, would that be acceptable? The best way to argue against a speaker is not to attend the talk. I would like to know if the same students that invited the speaker were the ones that cancelled.
@gearl, i would like to clearly distinguish between "stopping/blocking free speech" & "banning a speaker". in a democratic society or any institution within such a society it will always be the vocal majority that chooses its speakers. at least it's the best we can hope for. i trust that Richard Dawkins will find a suitable platform & audience. i wouldn't want nazis shout their sick drivel across my domain - i'd ban them.
@walklightly I think that we need to agree to disagree on this issue.
@gearl, i agree.
Add Christianity to that list.
We have freedom of speech even though often it might be best not to say exactly what you think as it could cost you, especially in situations where you have Christain business associates when it comes to your atheist beliefs. Unfortunately many Christain’s consider atheist to be immoral.
Trajan61
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
2
I guess the best way to approach free speech is to pick the time and place, but also be aware that if I say something controversial I could lose out if my words are taken out of context
@Lancer Or taken exactly in the context and manner they were said if you say awful shit. Some of the people yelling, "Jews will not replace us" into television cameras found that out the hard way.
@JeffMurray I guess so. But even then, who really cares.
I know a good guy who lives with a gay couple. He got really drunk one night and was shouting outside the house "Hitler was right, kill all the gays" then passed out drunk halfway through the door. The gay couple just got permanent marker and drew swastikas on his face, dick and balls. Plus a little hitler mustache.
It just depends on how people react to it. If we just ignored people who scream and shout then they lose their power. But if they start looking for fights like ANTIFA then just be prepared to be punched for abusing strangers who just want to preserve their history or go listen to a guest speaker speak.
Also I kinda feel sorry for those people. I don't share their views but I don't think they should be attacked for it. If they physically attacked Jews then that's a problem. But just saying stuff like that is fine.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. I'm asian and I just let the racists say whatever they wanted. But when they made my sister cry I left them on the floor covered in their own blood. That's just the way things work.
In saying that I probably shouldn't have done that. My sister should have just become strong like me. she was 18 months older than me and so were her 3 bullies. It's easy to become strong, even a weakling like me did it and I'm only 5 ft 5.
Strength is a choice and so is being a victim.
None of what you said makes any sense to me. He was a good guy but screaming about how gays should be put to death? But he was living with a gay couple? So he was just joking? But then they drew swastikas on his face in permanent marker? What?!?
Also, immediately after saying it's wrong for people to get attacked for saying awful shit, and the sticks and stones adage, you claim you did the exact opposite and beat the shit out of 3 people for saying mean stuff? Then claim that's the way things work? I don't think you are qualified to use a keyboard.
Anyway, you've clearly shown your colors siding with the self-described Nazis and downplaying their activities as "just want to preserve their history or go listen to a guest speaker speak."
The pro life christians annoy me the most.
if a stranger asks me to stop a conversation with a friend, my response will be: "no. i didn't ask you to listen." when i go shopping past the aisle with hundreds of cage eggs, laid by brutally neglected & exploited hens, it hurts me to the core of my being. do i sue the business? can i demand being spared the horrors of our time? no, i can't. as long as verbal expression happens on a reasonable level i will defend it with my tongue. even explaining my hurt & fear & anger, as emotional as they are, can be done in a totally non-emotional, non-blaming way. my experience is my responsibility. if i don't like what i hear, i can always either turn away or engage in a meaningful conversation (like the old athenians, discussion-style). i prefer to think for myself.
walklightly
Level 8
Jan 31, 2018
1
You sound like a very intelligent person.
thank you, @Lancer, if nothing else, i hope that is true 
It was wrong for a speaker to be invited, then rejected. It happens, but the inviters should know their invitees before taking the step. What the heck? Know who they are before inviting. Really. And if people threaten the speaker, ban them, use the law.
@GoldenMean, why do you tell me that? you sound angry.
Technically we can say whatever we want, but in a practical manner we can't. You can't say whatever you want at your job without getting punished. You can't say whatever you want in a court of law without getting punished. You can't say whatever you want to a cop or especially to a federal agent without getting punished. There are consequences to your words, especially in a civilized society, and for good reason. These things basically make people think about their words more and what they want to say. So yeah, we can blurt out whatever we want, but we are encouraged not to by force of punishment. You can say that's really completely free speech, but I don't think it really is. Maybe if it was still the Wild West, but it's not.
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
1
I agree with your comment. But I was mainly talking about how if 2 people are having a private conversation and another person interrupted because they felt offended
@Lancer If someone did that to me I would tell them to mind their own business. Hopefully in a nice way lol
We are free to speak and free to listen, but we should all remember that we are equally free to look stuff up. In a book, along with a bunch of other books on the topic. And I may have you beat, Lancer -- my bit (strictly amateur) is advocating that the right 30 million people switching from a car commute to a bike commute could save 100,000 lives a year and start putting a dent in global warming. I don't get told to shut up, but the looks I get are like the Southpark episode where at the end Kyle told all the priests that they actually had to stop having sex with children/
andygee
Level 7
Jan 30, 2018
1
Fair enough. I'm not a climate change denier, I believe it is happening. But when people get on the news and say things like "the temperatures are rising and more CO2 is dissolving into the water, causing higher ocean acidity" I just think "well, when did the laws of physics change?" Because higher temperatures decrease solubility of gas into liquids (the reverse for salts). So although I believe climate change occurs, I question the authenticity of the claims made by some scientists who are probably just trying to get monetary grants for their research.
It's a stunt. Whether or not humans are causing significant climate change is yet to be determined. But I agree we need to do more research into the topic.
Try agreeing with one scientist who said, If people stopped having children for just 100 years, the population would be back to sustainable.
@GoldenMean How is that possible? Am I missing some irony? Or does "sustainable" mean zero?
When did someone go to jail for hurting someone's feelings? I really need to see the citation for that.
Lucy_Fehr
Level 8
Jan 30, 2018
1
if hurting feelings include threat... yeah, you may end up in jail. I was friend with wife of an artist that how an art expression issue a threat to the visiting USA president in the 70's, FBI showed up and picked him up, he wasn't let go until about 2 weeks after president left, plus the legal fees on federal court... was not worth it. Puerto Rico in the 70's
Becoming common day occurrences now.
Threats are different than hurting feelings. And threats against a head of state will be taken very seriously.
I didn't initially realize the OP was not about America where I have a degree in criminal justice and since I know little of the CJ system in the UK, I will defer to others
There are anti bullying initiatives now but I have yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted criminally for hurting feelings over here.
Just to reiterate and clarify- I see a distinct difference between bullying and hurt feelings that come from a conversation or presentation.
In the former, there is an informed sustained deliberate intention to cause emotional harm to a chosen target. Which is far different than the hurt feelings that arise from someone making an inflammatory or even an asshole comment during a talk or conversation
Here is Nottingham Police's website on Hate crime. As a result of this, a mere accusation of sexual harassment from a woman can get a man put in jail.
Hate crime is stupid. Why can't people just ignore things like this? I'm Asian and I couldn't care less if someone called me a small eyed Honky Chinky Asian faced small d!<k chicken S#@t. I just walk away. Since when did people's feelings make them so weak that they have to complain and react to everything?
Also as for the men being jailed. It has happened, I saw it on the local newspapers but obviously it won't be on the internet because the mainstream news doesn't like it when men are seen as victims. We still need to keep up the female victim stereotype apparently
@Atheistman In what way am I living under a rock? Are you saying there is no difference between hurt feelings and bullying, therefore I am mistaken? Or are you referring to something else?
@Atheistman No I didn't but since your comments do not post immediately whereas mine do, I can see why you may think otherwise. I posted both comments mere minutes apart but I did not see your rock comment until this morning.
But since I had already said that there was a difference between hurt feelings and threats I thought perhaps the second post was superfluous. Apparently not.
I can't really tell if the false outrage you refer to is a comment I missed or something you erroneously are accusing me of but I stand behind what I said above
Edited at 6:06 pm EST to add that I was not outraged, upset, angry or any other adjective when I asked what you meant by living under a rock. I still do not know what you meant.
@Atheistman
I wanted to know what part of my statement you were referring to so I could address it but despite my repeated requests for clarification you refuse to engage in anything other childish insults so I suspect your only interest here is trolling or perhaps you are simply obdurately doubling down.
Either way this current conversation is a waste of my time.
All the arse-hole cops who arrested people for being irritating--in their minds.
I can only say how things are in the USA, and while we technically still have free speech, those on the progressive left keep chipping away at it. I agree, we need to tough it out more as opposed to getting offended so easily. Easier said than done though, as the far-left are known to be emotionally unstable.
SpikeTalon
Level 9
Nov 10, 2018
1
If you abrogate your own freedom of speech by yielding to the demand, that's entirely on you. Remember, though, that freedom of speech is not freedom of the consequences of speaking. You may lose friends, but they won't be friends who were worth your time.
JimG
Level 8
Feb 9, 2018
1
True.
Personally, my friends and I are quite different in the way that we have a very broad range of political, religious and ethical opinions. We debate them to the point of sometimes screaming over each other and then laughing at an inside joke made by one of us (usually me, but I'm biased). We disagree strongly on many things and I noticed this quite a bit over the years. Even though we went to different middle schools and high schools, we still met up for a bonfire party or a BBQ or a birthday and got along great.
Just before I left my country I said "Hey guys, I really like how we can disagree strongly on many different things, but at the end of the day we can sit here, eat dinner at the same table, laugh, enjoy ourselves and have a great time".
They all agreed that it was true. I believe that is true friendship. Even though we are all studying different courses at different universities and we will probably go our separate ways with careers. I think that we will still stay friends and help each other out when they need it.
Of course free speech is limited. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater without being charged civilly or criminally. I can say I hope something bad happens to so and so, but not I will do something bad to so and so. One is an opinion, the other a threat. But I agree with you about this growing climate of dissent intolerance. I'm in the thick of one of these cases now. My alma mater decided to let Richard Spencer speak on campus. My liberal brethren already staged a campus walkout, a sit in, nazi punching counter demonstrations, and called for the administration to step down. What boggles the mind is how students at an elite University can't comprehend that infringing any speech, even speech I vehemently disagree with, is a threat to all speech. And the chorus of, "But...but...they're nazis!" was hardly reassuring. I'll counterprotest the Nazis once they get here, while I vehemently support their efforts to out themselves as racist assholes.
Eponymous
Level 5
Feb 2, 2018
1
Freedom of speech does not protect you from what other people do. It protects you from being the subject of punitive action on behalf of the government because of your speech. It does not give people protection from having what they say challenged, shouted down, cut off, or even banned from certain places.
GrantSmith
Level 6
Jan 31, 2018
1
That's fine. But in a case where some people invite a speaker to anuniversity because they want to hear them. Then because others don't want to hear them, they get the university to ban them from speaking. It's like George Orwells thought police dictating what people can hear and who they can hear it from.
If somebody doesn't want to listen to the speaker, just don't go. But don't stop others from listening to the speaker. That's just rude.
@Lancer Again, it depends on the content.
If it were not for free speech & freedom of the press, right now we would be 1938 Germany.
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
0
Aren't we?
Have you seen the atrocities that our democratic nations have committed in the last 100 years?
Genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, sexism, torture, oppression, thought policing, radical left and radical right wing terrorism. Are we really better than 1938 Germany? At least they had a country they could take pride in and the strength of unity. All we do nowadays is spread division and ignorance. But to be fair Germany had a fair amount of ignorance too.
@Lancer sadly true...but at least some fight back, because they can be informed if they care to be. Hitler opened Dachau just 6 months after his election specifically for dissidents & members of the press who wouldn't suck up. So far, we are ahead of that.
In the U.S., free speech is still a right, but those who practice it often find themselves ostracized for doing so. What is most concerning is tht this is especially true in terms of the media and the press. Reporting embarrassing facts, especially about Trumpo, often results in a backlash and retaliation.
snytiger6
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
0
Trump began the fake news yell because the media reporting what he did and said infuriated him. It's disgusting that everyone now says the media is all fake. Journalists are murdered in some countries for telling the truth. Stop throwing our reporters under the bus. Sure, there are evil liers in the media, but the mainstream is working hard to keep us informed. Don't let the pig baby tear down our most important method of keeping light on the wrong-doers. If you don't clap for me, you're treasonous? Really? Somebody help us.
There has been equal backlash against conservatives too in the form of protests at colleges, to give one example. Since Trump was elected President some on those on the progressive left have shown a very mean spirited attitude towards those who may lean to the right.
As long as you're white and male. I see too many cases where a person of color, especially a MALE will not be given ths same concideration as a white. Yes is it also racist, so which came first? The responsiblity that comes with free speech seems to be little understood.
silverotter11
Level 9
Jan 30, 2018
0
the only responsibility that comes with my free speech is my integrity.
@walklightly exactly!!
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.