Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government China Communications Social Networks The Internet United Kingdom Your Rights Online

China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan 355

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-know-you're-on-the-wrong-side-when dept.
mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan

Comments Filter:
  • +1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:16AM (#37103792)

    You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

    • Re:+1 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:24AM (#37103830)

      Let's hope politicians don't try to stall this plan, as the UK are at risk of having their oppression rating downgraded to an AA+.

    • Hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)

      by cappp (1822388) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:27AM (#37103856)
      The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was [zeropaid.com]

      Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

      Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

      We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

      • Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nick Ives (317) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:48AM (#37103968)

        If enacted, those provisions would be used against dissenters just like the Terrorism Act is now.

        I personally know people who've were detained under the Terrorism Act for walking through Charing Cross station with placards in their bag on the day of the royal wedding. They were released hours later and I believe are planning legal action.

        You're a fool if you think laws giving those kinds of powers to police to control social media won't be used against political dissenters.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cappp (1822388)
          Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

          That comment has in turn lead to claims of fascism, censorship et al. How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation. In this specific case those claims are, as yet, unwarranted. By all means freak out when there's a law being propos
          • but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

            Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).

            • by tehcyder (746570)

              but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

              Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).

              The point is that a politician mentioning the possibility of censorship is some distance removed from an actual law invoking censorship.

              After the riots, you could find people, including politicians, talking about the imposition of curfews, arming all the police, bringing back p;ublic flogging and so on. It doesn't mean any of them will happen, and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.

              • and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.

                Whether they're more serious or not is probably subjective. However, that is probably what most people think. Other than that, I agree with you that talking doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.

              • Well the police and citizens should be armed. Things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as out of hand if both officers and law abiding citizens under duress were able and ready to permanently end a rioters looting spree.
                • Re:Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by jpapon (1877296) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:33AM (#37104448) Journal
                  You do realize that means rioters would be armed too, right?

                  So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!

                  • I agree with this 99.999%
                    Then there is that other part that would have loved to have seen an Apache helicopter cruise up the road and chain gun them all. If they were armed I think we'd have a better case to back that one up.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by JockTroll (996521)
                    So what? Rioters in the US have access to firearms, and yet you see no civil war in the street, just UK-level vandalism and looting. I should also point out that the Wild West was way tamer by violence standard than present day, shootouts were relatively rare and body count low. Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news. And one last thing, some massive destruction in the UK would be considered an improvement by many.
                    • by jpapon (1877296)

                      Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news

                      Maybe in the U.S., where gun murders are more common... but in most of Western Europe three deaths by shooting would definitely make headlines.

                    • Except you're only looking at murders committed with GUNS. Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US - the only difference is that in the UK they're using knives instead of guns. It's much harder for an average person to use a knife to defend themselves against another person wielding a knife - it's much easier for an untrained person to use a gun to defend themselves.
                    • by lexsird (1208192)

                      Training? Are you serious? A gun is NOT a complicated mechanism. What you want is license not a right. Sorry, but the truth is it's a right. If you are so ignorant you can't figure out how a gun works, then you probably aren't reading this because you can't read. Especially Americans, we have guns for breakfast, lunch and supper hear, we sleep with them under our pillows, we put them in our cars, in our cartoons, we have toy guns for when we are kids, our games have guns, our computer games have lots and lo

                    • by arevos (659374)

                      Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US

                      In 2009, the US had 5.0 homicides per 100,000 people. The UK had 1.28 homicides per 100,000.

                      I find it a little hard to believe that there are more violent crimes per capita in the UK, but almost four times less murders.

                  • by turing_m (1030530)

                    I have no idea why Britain is so proud of their defenseless citizens. It used to be that every man age 15-60 had to have a bow, and practice on Sundays and public holidays.

                  • Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Interesting)

                    by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @08:08AM (#37106086)

                    You do realize that means rioters would be armed too, right?
                    So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!

                    Remember the big L.A. riots? People in Los Angeles were essentially disarmed also.

                    How about the big Nashville riots? No? Probably because they didn't happen. And Nashville happens to be a place where guns are moderately common.

                    Fact is, most people trying to steal a flat-screen TV don't have a major interest in getting shot for their trouble, and tend to look for safer lines of work if the likelihood of getting shot starts going up.

                    Once upon a time, shortly after Florida made concealed carry legal, it was noticed that there was a spike in robberies of people in rental cars in Florida. Upon investigation (and the questioning of various people robbing people driving rental cars), it was determined that the people who like to steal things from other people had decided (correctly) that people in rental cars tended to be from out of State, and thus has ZERO chance of packing heat. Which made them much safer to rob than the general public....

              • by Archtech (159117)

                The point is that a politician mentioning the possibility of censorship is some distance removed from an actual law invoking censorship.

                It's about as far removed as a private soldier with mine detection gear walking cautiously down a road checking to see if it is safe. If he finds no mines, about 20 minutes later an armoured division will be rattling down the road, on its way to blot someone out of existence.

                So we had better hope he finds some mines.

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by Totenglocke (1291680)
            To be fair, I think the fact that the UK is the most intense police state / surveillance society in the "free" Western countries is what has lead to the claims of fascism (and has for some years before Mr. Cameron was ever elected).
            • Re:Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)

              by fremsley471 (792813) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:54AM (#37104542)

              ...the UK is the most intense police state / surveillance society in the "free" Western countries.

              That's bollocks. The UK has a load of CCTV (which seems damn ineffective looking at the results from last week) and ANPR is being aggressively installed without debate (next big liberty row ahead), but there's no separate paramilitary police (France, Germany, US National Guard [?}, et al.) or a nationwide police force under direct govt control (e.g. FBI). We almost certainly have a very advanced spying of phones and t'internet (hello GCHQ and thanks IRA)- and it's more than likely that all phone calls are monitored. But read up on Echelon; it's not just the UK.

              I was in a Ventura, north of LA, a few years ago and we found out about the ATF. They came into a bar below our hotel and made the drinkers overturn their pints 'cause the ratio of alcohol/food in the bar's accounts was not the same as the licencing conditions. That's an intense police state.

              • I was in a Ventura, north of LA, a few years ago and we found out about the ATF. They came into a bar below our hotel and made the drinkers overturn their pints 'cause the ratio of alcohol/food in the bar's accounts was not the same as the licencing conditions. That's an intense police state.

                While I am far from defending the US government, this may be quite different from the picture you paint.

                1. Assume there are different licenses for bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
                2. Assume the restaurant license is
          • > How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation.

            Is the issue complicated? Who is the master and who is the servant? What do constitutions say?

            If I am the master I can say: "uuugh those servants ought to be all hanged by their balls". And expect no repercussion, I simply voiced an opinion on my servants, I am not even required to be remotely correct, I am the master. If I am not allowed to say that, I

          • by Archtech (159117)

            Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

            That is exactly the way such politicians normally operate. Terrified of anything that might give them bad publicity or affect their popularity ratings, before they even consider doing anything they fly a kite - as Cameron did - to see what reactions it provokes.

            Which is precisely why it is essential for everyone to give it a sound drubbing, point out how illiberal and repressive it would be, and mock Cameron soundly for aligning himself with the Chinese government. It won't take much of that for him to thin

      • Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bky1701 (979071) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:52AM (#37103988) Homepage
        Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right? China has plenty of qualifiers, too, you know. People who care for their freedoms shouldn't accept hollow excuses for fascism, because as history readily proves, fascists have no shortage of them. Censorship is never the right answer, no matter how many times nor how loud people argue that it is.

        Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.
        • by cappp (1822388)
          Censorship with qualifiers is good, yes. Society recognizes through the law that sometimes speech has to be restricted no matter how horrifying that concept is to you or I. The important thing is to ensure that governments censor only so much speech as is absolutely necissary, and not a syllable more.

          Consider that restraining orders are government sanctioned, and enforced censorship. As are all the laws related to slander and libel. Pretty much all the fraud laws too. And anything related to trade secre
          • by bky1701 (979071)
            Perhaps I just realize the absurdity of all forms of censorship, and thus disagree with them. Claiming my opinions are "jumping to hyperbole" does little to change the fact that many are coming to share this stance, as more and more the excuses grow for why people should be repressed.

            There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all.
            • by AndGodSed (968378)

              Consider this hypothetical scenario, and let's be clear that I do not know you in any way - this is just for an example:

              Say I call your wife a whore, and spread a rumor that she is sleeping around. Say I use facebook to spread this rumour. Then I go further and incite violence against her via twitter.

              Where in this hypothetical scenario should the state step in and stop me?

              You can probably step in and stop me via a lawsuit (slander?) but then anonymous or 4chan gets involved. Should the state step in there?

              • by mwvdlee (775178)

                The GP is claiming all censorship should be banned. So a slander lawsuit wouldn't be an option.
                No censorship means absolute freedom of speech, no holds barred; as long as it's not physical, it cannot be banned.
                The guy and his wife will just have to accept the lies and violence with their only option being verbal response (GLWT).
                The only time a state would be able to step in is after a physical crime occurred; after the violence.

                • by AndGodSed (968378)

                  Yep that is kind of where I was trying to get at. Some censorship is good. To claim that "some censorship" means "no freedom of speech" is a slippery slope fallacy.

              • by bky1701 (979071)
                I think you're trying too hard. That scenario lacks sense to the point of being worthy of status as an example of non sequitur. I'm really not sure why 4chan would care, unless you happen to be Sony. So while I would reply, I'm not entirely sure where your point was, honestly.
                • by AndGodSed (968378)

                  My point is, without recourse to censorship you will be without protection from slander or threat or organisation of violence against you.

                  And 4chan has been known to mess things up for individuals before.

                  I believe my point stands.

        • In warfare, preventing your enemies from communicating amongst themselves is desirable for a winning strategy. Imagine if it was impossible for al-qaeda to communicate with each other all throughout the 90's. 9/11 would never have happened.

          A crude example, I know, but it goes to demonstrate that there is some legitimacy in preventing hostile communication.

      • by khallow (566160)

        Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right.

        It's like assurances that your teacher wears a condom at all times when they teach. The mere presence of the "qualifier" indicates something has gone wrong. The government of England has no business spending more than 30 seconds considering these actions.

      • by rainer_d (115765)

        The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was [zeropaid.com]

        Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

        Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior. We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

        Jesus was tried and crucified as a criminal, too. The definition of a "criminal" varies from country to country. Don't you think the protesters in Iran weren't labeled as "criminal", too? Or the people who toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia? The guys in China's KP probably can't stop laughing - with talk like this, Western political "leaders" reveal their calls for human rights in China and elsewhere as what they really are: soapbox speeches. Granted, the riots in UK didn't have a political dimensi

        • by tehcyder (746570)
          So in order to avoid censorship and protect absolute freedom of speech, we should not in fact label any behaviour as criminal, in case it is in fact just disguised political activity?

          I suppose the Moors Murderers and the Yorkshire Ripper were really freedom fighters, and the evil UK government censored them by locking them away in secure mental institutions?
          • by rainer_d (115765)
            The behaviour was criminal. But that doesn't warrant shutting down or censoring "social media" - as useless and productivity-killing as that stuff may be anyway... Because, as I said, the definition of a criminal is very flexible. In Germany, people are exchanging information about random ticket inspections via FB and twitter so they can avoid paying the ride-fare. Should that be a reason to block or shutter FB and twitter, too?
      • by John Allsup (987)

        In the European Convention, as I read it, rights to not extend to the extent that they seriously impinge upon the rights of others. I am just asking JustAnswer about my rights. What we need in the decision process is accountability: everybody who makes a decision or interpretation of weight should write down their decision or interpretation and sign it and the trail of authority should be available for inspection under Freedom of Information laws.

      • by foobsr (693224)

        ... to look at whether it would be righ ... t

        translates to: exploring possibilities to bend the current legal system in order to implement what is seen fit

        violence, disorder and criminality

        translates to: any situation that (seriously) endangers the steadily growing flow of (financial) resources from top to bottom

        Or would you (publicly, here, on slashdot) state that you believe what a politician says? (Remeber: How do you realize that a politician is lying ? -- His/her lips are moving).

        CC.

      • Translation for the political speech impaired:

        They're looking at whether it would be right.

        Meaning: we've decided to do it and are looking at a way to have the bill pass; trust us we're good at that. If all else fail there's always the good ol' and very effective "think of the children" card to play.

        They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

        Meaning: we'll spy on and block each and every communication we don't like and throw you in jail for it, preventively. Then you'll enjoy working your way through the courts to challenge the administrative decision.

    • You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

      That would be succeeding in communism not fascism.

      The 'Standard & Poors of Fascism' would probably be the USA; A fascist state can be democratic, its defining feature is putting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of its people. I think that describes modern America, yes?

  • Now the UK should know there doing something wrong when China Praises you for anything.
    • by Nick Ives (317)

      I think Syria said they approved of Cameron's plans to place controls on social media too.

      There was this great dream that somehow opening up closed, dictatorial societies like China and the countries in the Middle East to free flows of capital would inevitably lead to the spread of democracy. What's actually happened is that rather than freedom flowing to them, corruption and authoritarianism is flowing from them.

      • You have to admit, corruption has been here before already, it's not like we had to learn anything there. What changed maybe is that nobody bothers to hide it anymore. What for, people don't really care anymore anyway.

        Well, not like they had a choice.

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        I think Syria said they approved of Cameron's plans to place controls on social media too.

        There was this great dream that somehow opening up closed, dictatorial societies like China and the countries in the Middle East to free flows of capital would inevitably lead to the spread of democracy. What's actually happened is that rather than freedom flowing to them, corruption and authoritarianism is flowing from them.

        Don't be a moron, it is perfectly clear what countries like China, Iran and Syria are doing: they are trying to conflate criminal behaviour with free speech and legitimate protest. Countries like the UK know the difference perfectly well.

    • Just like when multiple dictators (such as Chavez) praised the US when Obama was elected. When murdering tyrants support your decisions, you're doing it wrong.
  • Like slavery... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhoegl (638955) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:16AM (#37103798)
    Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.

      That's a true position according to the laws of discussion. But the main point, IMHO, is that UK government was humiliated by this comparison, and frankly, they deserved it.

    • But it does prevent others from criticizing you. Which, sadly, seems to be good enough for a lot of people.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!

    Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
    Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.

  • by buglista (1967502)
    Just like the War against Terror allowed everyone to justify punitive actions against their own "internal terrorists", like in Chechnya, and more recently Syria. Great - thanks a bunch Mr. Cameron. Next time, think before you open your mouth, please.
  • The Onion? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ironix (165274) <steffen@norgren . c a> on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @01:46AM (#37103954) Homepage
    When I first read this headline I could have sworn it was an Onion article.
    • The whole riot can be summed up with a page from "Our Dumb Century" describing the Rodney King riots in LA, "Rioters demand justice, tape decks"
  • China has Balls (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bky1701 (979071) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @02:03AM (#37104044) Homepage
    As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.
    • Thankfully, there's a vast disconnect between the CCP and the average Chinese citizen. The government has much more to fear from its own people than the rest of the world. That is a good thing!

      We will all be held accountable. Your fellow citizens will demand it.

      • I think you're right. That's more a message to their own people rather than any western government. Kinda like "See, they do it too. And if you think the free world's so much better than our system, you should now notice that what we do is good since they do it too".

      • What I find particularly interesting about recent events is that Gadaffi claimed that "Irish and Scottish mercenaries helped tame the riots".

        http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE77A0AW20110811 [reuters.com]

        Aside from the utterly laughable lunacy of such a claim, what this means is that his followers and people are so utterly disconnected from reality that they genuinely believe the rest of the world is like a bigger Libya. This is one area where the internet has a hugely positive effect - by normal Libyans sittin

  • I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.

    I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.

    When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the wor

    • by bky1701 (979071)

      I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either.

      I think you're wrong in assuming that wasn't their goal from the outset. This is a PR nightmare for the Conservatives, and one I have a hard time believing the Chinese didn't foresee. They're a whole lot smarter than they let on.

    • I doubt the CCP gives half a shit about Cameron. This is a self-serving statement. Domestically, it should demonstrate that the "free" world isn't better than China, there's no difference, they do the same. Externally, it should be something like "Pot? Calling me black?"

  • by bursch-X (458146) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @02:33AM (#37104168)
    China welcomes our new censorship overlords!
  • by radio4fan (304271) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:17AM (#37104380)

    Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.

    Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.

    The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.

    I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.

    Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.

  • by fondacio (835785) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:45AM (#37104498)

    Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?

    The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.

  • by ciderbrew (1860166) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @03:53AM (#37104538)
    Some of you may not have seen this. It's just a bit of fun.
    But too true.
    http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/ [nathanieltapley.com]
  • by wcoenen (1274706) <wcoenen@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @06:14AM (#37105226)
    The original article [ftchinese.com] is an opinion piece. It ends with a little editor's note that it represents the author's point of view only. That's not the same as the Chinese government congratulating their new UK comrad.
  • by jbssm (961115) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @06:21AM (#37105276)
    "We've always been at war with Eurasia and we've always been allies of Eastasia."
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday August 16, 2011 @06:52AM (#37105444)

    England (officially London, but events are spread all over the place) hosts the 2012 Olympics and the government must be scared spitless that there will be a repeat of last weeks "minor difficulties" either during or in the run-up to the games, when all the world's media will be present and reporting live. They don't really care that a bunch of shops got burned and others looted, sicne there's no election for some years - but they do care about their world image.

    I think we can therefore say fairly accurately that there will be massive restrictions on the freedoms that citizens have, to ensure there is no possibility of any disruptions to the two weeks of running and jumping next summer (plus the paralymics, of course). The only question is: how much of that security clampdown will ever make it into the press?

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...