MENU

Why Trump’s Executive Order on Social Media Is Not Censorship

By Walter Donway

October 30, 2020

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic—to mention only a few Democratic Left publications—have not so much reported the sensational story as suppressed it, downplayed it, and cast doubt on it.

Have you heard of the New York Post Biden story? I’m sure you have, but unless you follow news sources outside the mainstream media (MSM), you have heard the story in the form of denials, attacks on the Post, indictments of the story. Because the New York Times, Washington Post, and Atlantic—to mention only a few Democratic Left publications—have not so much reported the sensational story as suppressed it, downplayed it, and cast doubt on it.

On October 14, a New York Post headline, “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad,” was a high explosive coming some two weeks before the U.S. presidential election. The story alleged influence peddling by Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, citing material reportedly recovered from a laptop. What was revealed were requests to Hunter Biden associates to use his influence with his father, then vice president in the Obama administration. Some embarrassing photos of Hunter Biden’s “lifestyle” were published.

The public does not know where these emails, quoted at length in the story, were obtained. It was alleged to be from a laptop. It could have resulted from a foreign intelligence operation. Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff the very same day alleged the information was a Russian disinformation hoax—struggling to resuscitate the long moribund allegations from the 2016 election that Schiff had championed charging that Trump connived with Russian intelligence. The next day, John Ratcliffe, director of U.S. National Intelligence, said there was no evidence that Russian intelligence had anything to do with exposing the Biden emails.

The expose had the potential to sway the 2020 presidential election. Democratic candidate Biden’s alleged use of his influence during decades in office, making himself wealthy on a public servant’s salary, and especially his supposed influence peddling to enable his son, Hunter Biden, to make lucrative deals worldwide to become very wealthy, have haunted Joe Biden’s run for the nomination and now for the election.

It is not surprising. The attacks by Democrats and the MSM beginning almost when Donald Trump declared his candidacy in 2015—and endlessly throughout the election—have been allegations of illicit financial dealings, bribes, concealment of tax evasion, and illegal dealings in the White House meriting impeachment.

Now, with the Post story, there were not unseen tax returns, whispered blackmail payments to porn stars, and rumored phone calls to the Ukraine. No, there were more than 100 emails, verbatim, alleged to be from a Hunter Biden associate and making constant reference to Joe Biden. As Jonathan Turley wrote on October 17, 2020, in The Hill: “The media spent years publishing every wacky theory of alleged Trump-Russia collusion; thousands of articles detailed allegations from the Steele dossier, which has been not only discredited but also shown to be based on material from a known Russian agent.”

The New York Times, Washington Post, and other MSM rushed into print not with reports on the allegations as such, but with instant denials.

CNN: “The Anatomy of the New York Post’s Dubious Hunter Biden Story”

Vanity Fair: “New York Post Staff Reportedly Wanted Nothing to Do With That Fishy Hunter Biden Story”

New York Times: Post Published Hunter Biden Story amid Newsroom Doubts”

Chicago Tribune: “Post Published Hunter Biden Story Amid Newsroom Doubts.”

Washington Post: “The New York Post Chooses Cruelty.”

NPR: “Analysis: Questionable ‘N.Y. Post’ Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer and Giuliani”

No surprise, here, right? The New York Times publishes a blaring expose of the Trump tax returns. The MSM, including every news network and talk show, trumpets the awful expose. In about a week, but not before Biden recites it in the first presidential debate, the reality is known: It all had to do with a Trump prepayment of millions in earlier years that was applied what he owed later. The balance remaining to pay after that was trivial.

So the story disappeared. Not with retractions, of course. Just … vanished.

So the story disappeared. Not with retractions, of course. Just … vanished.

So far, the purported expose of the Biden corruption, completed with quotable smoking gun (to mix a metaphor) was just the MSM being the MSM.

But then, one of the biggest stories of the past decade, long-smoldering, gathering momentum, exploded.

In brief: Both Twitter and Facebook took extraordinary measures to squelch the story. Turley wrote in The Hill:

“The response of Twitter and Facebook, however, was to shut it all down. Major media companies also imposed a virtual blackout on the allegations. It didn’t matter that thousands of emails were available for review or that the Bidens did not directly address the material. It was all declared to be fake news.”

The response from Republicans, the non-MSM media like Breitbart News, and shocked and outraged users of social media shook Twitter and Facebook, already under pressure from Biden and the Democrats.

Again, John Turley in The Hill: “As Twitter buckled under criticism of its actions, it shifted its rationale from combatting fake news to barring hacked or stolen information.”

The information reportedly came from a laptop, not hacking. But, as Turley wrote: “this rule would block the public from reviewing any story based on, say, whistleblowers revealing nonpublic information, from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. … Twitter now says it will allow hacked information if not posted by the hacker.”

You get it. Under fierce threatening pressure from Democrats and the MSM, and doubtless moved by their own anti-Trump conscience, the social media authorities had no idea what to do or to say. (We will get to the fierce threatening pressure on them from the Trump administration’s notorious executive order.)

Beginning with the Trump victory in 2016, a victory achieved despite MSM opposition that stopped at nothing, and eventually jettisoned even decency. The media had shed objectivity, neutrality, fairness, balance, and even common decency, and still the American people had voted Donald Trump into office.

The culprit had to be found and punished. There were two culprits: the non-MSM, which was dubbed the “alt-right media,” like Breitbart News, and the social media, which had permitted unedited, unchecked fake news to sway the American people. Where once newspapers, magazines, and the network news and talk shows had produced carefully balanced, checked and edited news, the social media were a platform for any allegation, opinion, point of view.

A report from the prestigious Columbia University School of Journalism, funded by a grant from the George Soros Foundation(s), concluded and reported the alt-right press and the wide-open social media had permitted fake news, untrammeled opinion, and (it insinuated) the influence of the right-wing extremists to capture the minds of the electorate. The scrupulously researched, edited, fact-checked, balanced reporting of the New York Times and the Washington Post and their “professional news organizations” was drowned out.

Story after story in the MSM now focused on the irresponsibility of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in permitting his big tech platform—said one Sunday magazine article—to become like a communist Chinese government boot on the necks of Americans. (You must read it to believe it.)

The NYT reported on October 17, 2019, speech by Zuckerberg at Georgetown University and scoffed at his “reminders of the First Amendment and the American tradition of free speech more broadly …”

The NYT assured us that “Afterwards, observers analyzing the speech were unimpressed, seeing it as at best a reiteration of Facebook’s perennial self-serving argument …” And how Wired had written: “Zuckerberg doubles down on free speech …”

And now, said the NYT, the Zuckerberg speech has been “filed away” as merely “Zuckerberg’s continuing charm offensive toward the political class …”

Over four years since the 2016 election, there has been no let up in the MSM and Democratic pressure on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The theme has been that they must rise to the standards of respectable news organizations. They must fact check, eschew unsupported opinion, and expose “hate speech,” be a sentinel against the march from the Right.

It seemed evident that the ultimate objective of the MSM crusade to reform social media in the image of the long-established American press and its network news counterparts, was to get social media under strict control, and regulation, if possible, in time to ensure the domination of the MSM by the 2020 presidential election.

The way that Twitter and Facebook dealt with the potentially explosive Biden expose—by suppressing or excluding it—is the crowning success of four years of effort to rein in the social media.

Facebook had enabled hundreds of millions of Americans to share their opinions with friends and far, far more widely. Nationwide and worldwide ideas, opinions, and suggested links to stories went out to thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions. Every American and anyone worldwide could reach out through cyberspace with ideas, articles to share, their own “editorials” and “columns,” to an audience limited only by how compelling their post might be.

This was head-to-head competition with the ancient monopoly of the MSM as “news organs” and “journals of opinion.”  It used to be the “press,” then radio and TV, and you could write a letter to the editor if they deigned to print it.

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and the galaxy of online “platforms” blasted away that ancient monopoly. And the MSM acted … like a monopoly. They screamed for government to “regulate” the competition. To rein it in. This went far beyond the protection of profits—though that can’t be ignored as the grand old MSM companies lose subscriptions and readership. It also was about power. It was about the power of an elite to use its position to steer America toward enlightenment and liberalism. And that meant always to the left, always toward the politically correct, always toward postmodernism.

There hardly could be an American president more alert to the war-fighting strategy and tactics of the media that Donald Trump. Defying any generational stereotype, Trump had become a master of the Tweet, reaching millions, then tens of millions daily: directly, immediately, unmediated. The White House did not have to issue “press release” or “media release” to respond to media attacks. Did not have to call a “press conference.” Did not have to hope the media presented the White House side of the story before attacking it.

The Trump tweets became almost a goad to media madness. The president tweeted! And the press and pundits had to read his tweets to report what the president said—and after he said it!  Second!

Exactly what the liberal media had said, again and again, would happen with the Soviet Union’s dictatorship, and then the Chinese communist dictatorship—the new technology of communication would be irresistible in giving the people a voice—happened, instead, to them.

And they turned, enraged, like a wounded water buffalo, to attack and destroy their tormentor.

What was under attack was the technological innovation called the social media “platform”—the neutral cyberspace open to unmediated meeting and interaction of literally anyone. There are a few rules about obscenity, pornography, commercial fraud, and such. But, within those rules, the “platform” does not have point of view, no axe to grind. It exists to host unlimited exchange among an unlimited number of individuals.

The power to permit or deny individuals a platform for communicating with others is the ultimate political power. To regulate the communication of ideas and opinions is to regulate the human mind and thereby all social—and political–action. The social media platforms are the ultimate empowerment of the individual without regard for that individual’s point of view. The power of the individual’s point of view is limited by the ability to communicate, to persuade, to convincingly compel agreement.

There hardly could be an American president more alert to the war-fighting strategy and tactics of the media than Donald Trump. He had won the first battle with the MSM. Now, he saw clearly what made possible that upset 2016 victory (which was a victory, also, for the American people in the sense that they made their own choice, not the choice of MSM) was what was under attack.

It is difficult to pinpoint any particular remedy that the critics of social media companies were demanding. The media hardly could call for outright government censorship of what individuals said on Twitter. But there was talk of government reining in “tech giants” as businesses. Mostly, there has been a steady, mounting criticism of social media executives like Zuckerberg for not keeping orderly “premises”—screening, editing, warning, labeling. For not protecting the world against fake news, falsehood, pseudo-science, bigotry, hate, “right-wing” propaganda …

Those like Zuckerberg protest they did not wish to become mediators of truth, but they reached for various “fixes” that would get the MSM off their backs and stop the ominous calls to keep “big tech” in its place. And so, we got new departments, new systems, new panels of fact checker, new labelling of posts, and algorithms for patrolling all content.

The reforms mostly responded to demand from the MSM. Because the MSM had led calls for reform. And because the mostly young, college educated, semi-celebrities running the social media companies are leftish, postmodernist, politically correct in their own views. All ideas, opinions, policies and practices against which the New York Times editorializes, their columnists write, and their news and feature content attack became “problems” for the social media to address.

In fact, the calls had been for Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms to become publishers with editorial staffs and to “curate” their content as did the MSM. In short, to stop passively hosting the rising ideological, political, social dissent and sometimes near rebellion against left-liberalism, postmodernism, the politically correct, and the frankly social democratic.

These calls, and the social media response, in turn defined the specific nature of the counterattack by the Trump administration. Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others the MSM would call “the right” had launched their own protest, now, against what the social media companies were doing. Breitbart News, for example, ran stories—sometimes in the form of “alerts”—when Facebook or Twitter “edited” a politically incorrect writer, politicians, or other public figures.

Criticism of social media as serving the ideology of the leftish NYT (Breitbart News unfailing says “the far-left New York Times) immediately created a kind of internal debate among rightish posters on social media and elsewhere. Freedom of speech and the press are bedrock principles of the American right and they understand censorship to be strictly an act of government. Private individuals, private companies, cannot “censor” anything. Facebook was not censoring. The platform is its property and its business, just as the NYT is the property and business of the New York Times Company. The First Amendment applies no less to Facebook than the NYT. Government hands off. Period.

Then, on May 28, 2020, came the “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” signed by President Trump.

Any “executive order” on preventing online censorship properly is directed at government itself. But this was directed at social media companies. Where was the First Amendment?

The title itself was all wrong. Any “executive order” on preventing online censorship properly is directly at government itself. But this was directed at social media companies. Where was the First Amendment?

The order ran on for half a dozen pages, starting with a lengthy salute to freedom of speech and the press:

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power …”

In the last sentence, changing one phrase: Substitute for “large, powerful social media companies” the phrase “large, powerful … media companies” and what do you have? A clear call for overturning the First Amendment. There seemed a blatant, a crazy contradiction in these paragraphs between valorizing American freedom of speech and press and calling for regulation of what private social media companies could permit and not permit on their platforms. Case closed.

But then came the next sentence: “They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators…”

This raised an issue that probably was completely off the radar screen of most Americans. But the sentence introduced almost the entire rationale for the executive order. The explanation can be complex or simple and I will opt for simple. Early on, the U.S. Congress had virtually made possible the existence and growth of big-tech social media by legislation that exempted them from legal liability that applies to news media.

The legislation described social media platforms as not publications. And, therefore, not responsible as are publications under laws against libel, misrepresentation, invasion of privacy.

Imagine if Facebook could be sued for libel based on what any poster, anywhere, anytime posted? Sued for libel as though their legal department had reviewed every post in advance to ensure it was not libelous, not misrepresentation, and not invasion of privacy—and therefore protected by the First Amendment (to which those and certain other acts are exceptions). Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and others simply could not exist.

Instead, the legislation declared social media to be not publications but neutral platforms, “bulletin boards,” forums for individuals and organizations to exercise their own rights of free expression for which they alone were responsible.

If Facebook wanted to start reviewing, selecting, and editing its content—become not a bulletin board but a “content creator” with First Amendment protection—a publication—then it was liable for violations of First Amendment freedom by libel, misrepresentation, and invasion of privacy—among other media responsibilities.

Then, the order turned to what social media companies were doing in their newly assumed roles as publishers and editors. Following is a sample of the indictment:

“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship … [the term should have been selective “active editing”]… Tens of thousands of Americans have reported … online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

“Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.”

Publications of all kinds may actively edit, refuse content, publish content with a warning, exclude certain writers, and themselves express endless bias. So why not Facebook?

“It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pre-textual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

“Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation …”

What Section 230(c) did was protect social media from becoming a “publisher”—with all the attendant liabilities—if social media companies decide “in good faith” “to restrict access to content that it considers to be ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.’”

The burden of the entire executive order then becomes to require social media companies to confine their editorial intervention strictly to limiting obscenity, X-rated violence (my term), or harassment of another individual. The order then demonstrates how many ways the great, sprawling federal government may find to enforce its demands. I am quoting the order at length because I believe most Americans never heard of, much less read it. I know that I had not. Following is merely an introduction to the specific order to “executive departments and agencies.”

“To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

“(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions …”

Again, the ultimate “sanction” against the social media companies is to be their loss of special protection as not a “publisher or speaker” when it makes third-party content available.

 

It has been only four-and-a-half months since the issuing of the order. But these have been months leading up to one of the contested, rancorous, “high stakes” (both parties say) presidential elections of our time.

The MSM worked for four years to ensure that by this election, the social media would not be the powerful platform it was in 2016 for the opponents, including the Trump forces, of the MSM. My personal estimate is that Facebook remains a forum for countless opponents of the MSM’s politically correct, democratic socialist, identity-politics-driven, anti-Trump worldview—and now its campaign to elect Democratic candidate Joe Biden, but, in reality, to defeat President Trump at all costs.

I have no way of knowing how many Facebook posts simply are sunk before they come over the horizon.

On the other hand, I have no way of knowing how many Facebook posts simply are sunk before they come over the horizon. I hear constant complaints about Facebook meddling, rules, restrictive algorithms, and such. Breitbart News continues to cite Twitter intervention in content. And now comes the NY Post expose of alleged extensive Biden family corruption with smoldering email for the “smoking gun.”

To repeat part of the earlier quote from The Hill: “The response of Twitter and Facebook, however, was to shut it all down. Major media companies also imposed a virtual blackout on the allegations.… It was all declared to be fake news …”

I hope it is clearer now that the two accused parties—social media and the major media companies—cannot be viewed the same way. But the article continues: “The tech companies’ actions are an outrageous example of open censorship and bias. It shows how private companies effectively can become state media working for one party.”

The executive order would “claim,” as I understand it, that Twitter and Facebook were “outrageous” in discarding the framework of their businesses (platforms) that earns them their exemption from liability for all the instances of defamatory material against which the media must guard.

This is how a story, also in The Hill, reported it:

“Conservatives have seized on Facebook and Twitter’s handling of this week’s controversial New York Post story on Hunter Biden to attack tech’s legal liability shield.

“The decisions by both companies to limit the spread of the dubious article … was used as evidence for Republicans’ allegations of anti-conservative bias in social media.

“President Trump … has used the episode to reenergize the crusade he’s led … since signing an executive order targeting it in May.

“‘Now, Big Tech—you see what’s going on with Big Tech? … censoring these stories to try and get Biden out of this impossible jam. He’s in a big jam,’ Trump said at a rally Thursday.”

Did Facebook and Twitter have a pivotal role in keeping the Biden expose from becoming the kind of “October surprise” that terrifies presidential candidates with damage to their reputation there is no time to fix? If so, then the four-year effort to “rein in” social media before the 2020 election will have its ultimate payoff.

The MSM will have won the big one. Their humiliation in 2016 will be redeemed. The wild west of every American able to express his or her own ideas, opinions, and preferences in public—and with an audience, just like the media—will be tamed. Editors, fact checkers, and trained responsible journalists (like at CNN or NYT or Wired) will treat facts and ideas as they are supposed to be treated.

Here is one solidly postmodernist view of the direction in which these paladins of journalistic excellence must travel:

Ted Glasser, a professor emeritus in communications in Stanford University, explained that in our day the notion of “objectivity” of reporters constricts them in seeking “social justice.” What the times requires are “activists” who cannot operated under restraints of objectivity.

Is anyone surprised to hear this? Consider first that the postmodernist philosophy now pandemic in American higher education, a philosophy with its roots in 19th century German counter-Enlightenment thinking, maintains there is no objective reality, no truth reflecting facts. So why are journalists still striking the pose of “reporters” of facts?  And consider, second, that these universities have graduated the reporters, columnists, editors, newscasters, commentators that fill the pages of newspapers and the nightly news. For example, the New York Times is decades into the new journalism that is advocacy and only advocacy. Today, only “old timers” protest lack of objectivity, and not often—most of them have been driven out.

You would imagine, on first grasping postmodernism, that Facebook and Twitter would be its perfect expression: every conceivable opinion and idea of every individual, no opinion better than another, no truth versus falsehood, and no real news versus fake news. Postmodernism metaphysics and epistemology in action.

No such thing. If there no reality, objectivity, or truth—if all that exists is the advocacy and the “activism” of Prof. Glasser—then activists need have no restraint in enforcing their views. “Freedom of expression” is not in service of truth. It is the freedom of activists for domination of their views. And there are no rules.

Without the claim to efficacious independent judgment, the imperative of following that judgment to deal with reality “that to be commanded must be obeyed (“modernist” thinking), the individual has no real standing in the postmodernist worldview. The power and significance of ideas inheres in collectives of individuals—by race, sex, nationality, and ethnicity. And that significance is to compete for political power: the power to dominate and oppress or to replace the oppressor. The social and political theory of postmodernism, born in 19th century Germany, gave rise to political movements, both born in Germany. The first was socialism in its Marxist version (communism). The second was socialism in its nationalist version (Nazism). The first espouses economic class struggle. The second espouses racial and national struggle. Both, economically, are versions of socialism.

Today’s American postmodernists are neo-Marxists though not necessarily full economic socialists because the anti-Enlightenment postmodernism of today embraces politics in which all ideology, ideas, and advocacy, and political power arises from racial, sexual, ethnic, national, and other identities. It is what is called “identity politics” and dominates today’s academia, intellectual scene, media, arts, education, social activism, and politics.

It is on behalf of postmodernist neo-Marxism that the MSM today advocate. It is to protect this ideology, and insulate it from significant opposition, that social media must become like the MSM and higher education. The election of Donald Trump in 2016, and how it took the MSM completely by surprise—and how Trump has remained in office despite four years of virulent MSM attacks and attempts to expel him—showed postmodernists that without bringing opinion on social media under control the long drive for a postmodernist, socialist America could be stalled. If the Obama administration could be succeeded by the Trump administration then where was the “progressive” movement?

If the Biden-Harris ticket prevails, social media are likely to become as intolerant and hostile to dissent from postmodernist neo-Marxism as are our colleges and universities and the MSM.

The top priority beginning in November 2015 and never ceasing has been to throw out Trump, throw out the Republican majority, and make sure Americans on social media never successfully revolted again against postmodernism and the long march toward a neo-Marxist vision of “social justice” in America.

This is what is at stake on November 3.

Beyond the election, of course, the same battle will continue. But if the Biden-Harris ticket prevails, social media are likely to become as intolerant and hostile to dissent from postmodernist neo-Marxism as are our colleges and universities and the MSM. It will be a tough and frustrating battle for those who view the technology of social media as a historic breakthrough for the intellectual ferment possible with true freedom of expression. In a sense, it is the last free institution or platform available for champions of Enlightenment philosophy, the American Revolution for individual rights and limited government, the triumphant success of capitalism in America, and the individualist sense of life that defined America as exceptional in history.

 

 

(Visited 263 times, 1 visits today)