US Will Ban Foreign Officials To Punish Countries For Social Media Rules (theverge.com) 216
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday that the U.S. would restrict visas for "foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States." He called it "unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil" and "for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States."
It's not yet clear how or against whom the policy will be enforced, but seems to implicate Europe's Digital Services Act, a law that came into effect in 2023 with the goal of making online platforms safer by imposing requirements on the largest platforms around removing illegal content and providing transparency about their content moderation. Though it's not mentioned directly in the press release about the visa restrictions, the Trump administration has slammed the law on multiple occasions, including in remarks earlier this year by Vice President JD Vance.
The State Department's homepage currently links to an article on its official Substack, where senior advisor for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Samuel Samson critiques the DSA as a tool to "silence dissident voices through Orwellian content moderation." He adds, "Independent regulators now police social media companies, including prominent American platforms like X, and threaten immense fines for non-compliance with their strict speech regulations." "We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty," Rubio says in the announcement, "especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech."
It's not yet clear how or against whom the policy will be enforced, but seems to implicate Europe's Digital Services Act, a law that came into effect in 2023 with the goal of making online platforms safer by imposing requirements on the largest platforms around removing illegal content and providing transparency about their content moderation. Though it's not mentioned directly in the press release about the visa restrictions, the Trump administration has slammed the law on multiple occasions, including in remarks earlier this year by Vice President JD Vance.
The State Department's homepage currently links to an article on its official Substack, where senior advisor for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Samuel Samson critiques the DSA as a tool to "silence dissident voices through Orwellian content moderation." He adds, "Independent regulators now police social media companies, including prominent American platforms like X, and threaten immense fines for non-compliance with their strict speech regulations." "We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty," Rubio says in the announcement, "especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech."
Fake news destroy democracies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fake news destroy democracies (Score:5, Insightful)
And exactly who gets to do this "regulating"?
No-one. They'll just make it "regulated" the same way a "well-regulated militia" is apparently supposed to be.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fake news destroy democracies (Score:5, Funny)
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
No wonder MAGA is so strong
Re: (Score:3)
This got modded "funny" but it really is worrisome how strong (powerful in our government) they actually are considering how utterly and often willfully ignorant they are.
Re: Fake news destroy democracies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if you cheese eating surrender frogs want to keep people from knowing the truth that Globeheads keep hidden from you, please do, but I for one need a constant stream of unmedicated schizophrenic drivel to keep my world view intact!
Re:Fake news destroy democracies (Score:4, Funny)
You can have our halal food though, all of it, please
Re: (Score:3)
The US is the one doing the censorship though. Big Orange is constantly shaking down media for paydays.
I don't see this really going anywhere. Free speech is free speech, but free speech is not unlimited, for if it was they wouldn't be going after porn, in any form. We don't want any country (not even Japan) to tolerate CSAM on their social media. And we don't want social media being used to doxx and violate copyrights with impunity.
Copyright and Free Speech can not exist at the same time, and neither can l
Re: Fake news destroy democracies (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it would be fair to, in some way, penalize countries that might arrest US citizens abroad for having posted messages on social media in the past if they had done so within the United States, where doing such a thing is perfectly legal. Which is a pretty bad thing to do, to be honest; why would it in any way be considered reasonable to expect a person to know the laws of every country in the world before they ever even knew they might some day set foot in that country, only to be held liable for doing what was legal where they did it?
Though I don't know that this has actually happened (there was the telegram guy who was effectively kidnapped by the French government for not complying with their laws while he wasn't in France, but he wasn't a US citizen) but if it does, this isn't a bad policy.
Either way, if the EU doesn't like it when people do things that are legal in their own countries, then they should just do what China already does: Stop trying to pretend you have free speech by attempting to scrub speech you don't like worldwide. They should just put up their stupid halal internet already if European eyes are so dainty that they might be harmed by plain text that shows up on their web browsers.
Internet Europeans always act just like Internet Russians when you point out that their governments censor: Either deny it, whatabout it, or explain why thought crime laws are necessary, especially if they happen to be telling the truth that somebody else, especially a politician, wants to bury.
Re: Fake news destroy democracies (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean it's fair to penalize the US for detaining people at the border over social media posts? Because that has been going on for years.
The EU doesn't need a firewall. Those companies choose to operate in the EU because it's a huge source of revenue for them. Of course, by having subsidiaries there, they agree to abide by EU laws. That's how the world works, a Chinese company can't set up a US subsidiary and expect it to operate only under Chinese law, with the Chinese government punishing Americans who try to enforce their local rules.
Re:Fake news destroy democracies (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, what kind of idiocy is this?
What purpose does it serve? In case you're wondering, it gives the Trumpers another pretext to arrest any foreign person who's made a post on social media that they don't like.
It also makes even more of the world hate us, but to them that's just an extra benefit.
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what kind of idiocy is this?
What purpose does it serve? In case you're wondering, it gives the Trumpers another pretext to arrest any foreign person who's made a post on social media that they don't like.
It also makes even more of the world hate us, but to them that's just an extra benefit.
I had to work at wrapping my head around the idea. I think it goes like this...
America decides 18 is old enough for porn.
An American citizen posts some nudes of an 18-year-old on social media.
A different country decides 18-year-olds are children and that appropriate age for porn is 21.
The other country threatens to arrest the American poster, presumably if they visit the other country.
The US doesn't grant visas to members of the government of that other country.
If you really want to know how stupid this is, subtract three from the number above and read it again. Of course, the actual target is probably something more like countries that have laws against hate-speech. Because it's not okay for any other country to have more stringent standards about how people treat one another than the US does.
Meanwhile the US will happily pursue extradition against Kim Dotcom because... enabling copyright infringement.
Laws varying from country to country are always a friction point. Weed is legal in Canada, but if you walk off an airplane into customs at some countries and are found with a very small amount, you may suffer what seems excessive punishment, but... it's their country. This rule seems to be trying to discourage other countries from acting upon their own laws and morality.
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
This rule seems to be trying to discourage other countries from acting upon their own laws and morality.
This concept is trying to discourage other countries from applying their laws to Americans WHILE IN AMERICA. The example would be the DEA going to Canada, and arresting Canadians because they're in possession of weed.
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
This rule seems to be trying to discourage other countries from acting upon their own laws and morality.
This concept is trying to discourage other countries from applying their laws to Americans WHILE IN AMERICA. The example would be the DEA going to Canada, and arresting Canadians because they're in possession of weed.
That's precisely where the sleight of hand is occurring.
Other countries are free to regulate business in their country as they see fit, and to ensure that business operating in their country are adhering to their laws (and to fine them etc. if they are not). I hope that we can all agree on this point.
Let's use the telephone as an example. If an American telephones another American and threatens them with violence over the phone, it is the American law that will apply to the person uttering threats. If an American telephones a European and threatens them with violence over the phone, which laws apply? Surely the European, sitting at home in Europe has an expectation that they will be free from threats in their own home and that their local laws will protect them as such. They would call the European Police, who would open a European police file, and possibly press charges in Europe according to European law. Enforcing any charges would be difficult if the USA refuses to extradite their citizen to face charges, but that's rather aside the point here I believe.
In any case, if a social media company wants to do business in Europe, they will have to follow European laws. If those laws state that they have an obligation to remove or block content that contains the words "Blatherskys", they are free to challenge the law, they are free to ignore it and fight the consequences every step of the way, they are free to not do business in that jurisdiction on principle, or they are free to comply. As the American citizen, a proud member of Blatherskys Anonymous, you are not being told you can't say whatever you want in support of Blatherskys, but you can't really expect every company in the world is also be obligated to amplify and broadcast your messages for you, in violation of local laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries will mark you person-non-gratias (Not welcome) and revoke your visa even if citizens complain about you. Not western ones, no way! They have to let everything slide!
No, if I go to another country, and I'm critical of their politicians, any movements, or attempt to influence their company, or threaten to arrest people from their country if they visit my country, for violating my countries rules, they'd kick my ass out in a heartbeat.
Welcome to 2025, where people are tired of double standards.
Re: (Score:2)
And because they're tired of double-standards, they add another one.
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The example would be the DEA going to Canada, and arresting Canadians because they're in possession of weed.
The equivalent would be the DEA issuing an arrest warrant for a Canadian selling weed on the "US" section of a Canada-hosted classified ads website.
Re: (Score:3)
And that would be legitimate in my opinion. Such a person would be eligible for arrest should he ever visit the United States.
Forcing Canada to make the arrest and extradite, on the other hand, would not be okay. The US has crossed this line several times over the last few decades.
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or bullying Canada into arresting a Chinese national because she lied to a Brit in Hong Kong about Iran?
Or attempting to extradite an Australian from the UK because he made some web pages?
I bet if you made enough posts encouraging violence against certain Americans you'd get in quite a bit of trouble too. Either extradited or jumped if you were dumb enough to take a little vacation to the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Radical idea: maturity (Score:2)
Instead of trying to censor opinions, we should let all viewpoints be heard.
Some are going to be called "hate speech," but this is what those in power always do to what they disagree with, so that loophole should close.
Then we can finally talk about this stuff.
People are going to find their own niches anyway, as we see on the Fediverse (Mastodon).
It requires maturity to accept that there is not one universal, absolute, and objective standard for "truth."
We can agree on some interpretations like basic math a
Re:Radical idea: maturity (Score:5, Interesting)
It requires maturity to accept that there is not one universal, absolute, and objective standard for "truth."
If I tell you that the earth is flat, but that's just "my truth", you'd be correct to dismiss it as nonsense. Being able to accept that there is complex nuance in the world and that people's beliefs cannot always be reduced to a binary is great, but taking that too far and failing to apply ANY critical evaluation is just as bad. Morality may be relative/subject, but that just makes it important to distinguish between a statement of morality and a statement of fact. Obfuscating the meaning of truth is helpful when discussing morality, and problematic when discussing facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of trying to censor opinions, we should let all viewpoints be heard.
Says the hypocrites scanning social media to reject visas.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is what MAGA voted for. They think he’s doing an incredible job because the official state media says he is.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what MAGA voted for. They think he’s doing an incredible job because the official state media says he is.
Well... they voted for something, not sure this and the other shenanigans are that. Wait until the "Big Beautiful Bill" passes and Medicaid funding is reduced and (probably) Medicare when the new law triggers PAYGO [wikipedia.org] because it raises the deficit too high. A lot of rural people, mostly in red states, depend on Medicaid either directly themselves or indirectly through Hospitals, or other facilities, that receive Medicaid funds -- fewer Medicaid fund, either directly or due to lower enrollment, means those h
Re: (Score:3)
Fox and co will tell them to blame the bills on the Democrats, Hunter Biden's laptop, Hillary's emails, woke, trans, DEI and so on, and they'll do just that. They will then cheerfully vote Trump in for a third term because we can't have unelected judges running this country.
Re: (Score:2)
What purpose does it serve? In case you're wondering, it gives the Trumpers another pretext to arrest any foreign person who's made a post on social media that they don't like.
Don't worry, release (or pardon) can easily be obtained with the purchase of some $TRUMP coins ... /s
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you really liked lead paint chips as a child.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok Putin
Flyover Nation (Score:5, Funny)
Republicans created fly-over states via intolerance, now they are extending it to the entire nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Dubya already did that with his war on tourism.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you're wondering, it gives the Trumpers another pretext to arrest any foreign person who's made a post on social media that they don't like.
The only idiocy is you inability to read. Please provide us with a quote from the article that supports your assertion.
I don't like the Bad Orange Man, but this is actually sound policy: don't give visas to officials of other countries who are responsible for threatening American citizens for their speech while on American soil and using American social media platforms etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Every other country has policies like this. A lot of them are fantastic countries, but if I go there and get involved in their politics, if people complain about me, or companies, or I make threats to citizens of their country that they're breaking my laws in my country and we'll arrest them if they come to my country, they'd kick my ass out and not let me back almost immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Name these “fantastic” countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, you know, fantastic countries!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the Bad Orange Man, but this is actually sound policy: don't give visas to officials of other countries who are responsible for threatening American citizens for their speech while on American soil and using American social media platforms etc.
Except that threatening people for their speech is exactly what this administration is doing.
So it's highly hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
But you miss the point if that's your reaction. We're not talking about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-citizens who violate the terms of their visas by getting mixed up in our politics get thrown out the same way I would get thrown out of France or wherever for doing the same thing.
But you miss the point if that's your reaction. We're not talking about that.
Oh I see, we take freedom of speech very super seriously, but only if you have the right paperwork. That tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign interference in our politics was one of the great fears of the founders of this country, or did you fail both compulsory years of American History?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Exercising constitutionally-guaranteed (to everyone, not just citizens) free speech in a way that offends government leaders is a violation of the terms of the visa? Can you post a link to support that idea? This is actually codified in the visa's terms and the visa applicant signed in agreement? Where are these restrictions documented?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What kind of idiocy is this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, what kind of idiocy is this?
It's Trumpian newspeak. The US claims the Digital Services Act will impose Orwellian censorship even though the law only imposes requirements for users in Europe. Instead, the US is attempting to pressure the EU to submit to US influence about what is censored in Europe, i.e., the US wants to have inverse censorship power over European countries.
With the Trump administration's overt exercise of Orwellian censorship, you'd think that it would know what constitutes Orwellian censorship.
When will the current US administration be banned? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, am I the only one who finds it weird that literal Nazis have twigged on anti-Semitism as unacceptable?
Re:When will the current US administration be bann (Score:4, Insightful)
When the republicans get a spine and start enforcing the separation of powers for the branches. They could vote tomorrow and Trump’s tariff tantrums would end.
Re: (Score:2)
They did. Enough of them in the senate voted to end the emergency. The speaker of the house stated that under no circumstances would he allow any such thing to be voted on. So it's really one man that's standing in the way.
The courts apparently got tired of it today though.
Re:When will the current US administration be bann (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they are even aware of the hypocrisy.
I suspect they don't view hypocricy in the same way as do you or I.
Historically politicians have tried to hide hypocracy, being unable to eliminate it, yet acknowledging it as shameful.
I don't see any attempt to hide, nor any sense of shame.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if they are even aware of the hypocrisy.
Between his press secretaries, the people he's appointed to high office and Trump himself, I wonder if any of them could even spell it.
Re:When will the current US administration be bann (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives 2010: "All this security state and warrantless spying is a massive overreach of governmental powers and unconstitutional"
Conservatives 2025: "Yes the executive branch can unilaterally declare anyone they want a terrorist with no reasoning or evidence and ignore due process to force deportations. "
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives complained about massive overreach and unconstitutional spying back in 2010 (and in the previous decade)? That's not how I remember it.
Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, etc, were all most definitely widely supported by conservatives. Only the liberal wackos on slashdot were talking about unconstitutional government overreach and things like security theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall during the Obama years they did complain because they weren't the ones in charge of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is us and who is they in this scenario?
Also so because Congress screwed up people just have no choice to abandon their core principles for some guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Well how far back do you want to go? While this is case where we can in fact say both sides have their share of blame as per usual we can put more of it on the conservatives, the Unitary Executive thing was pushed by Federalist and Heritage and Reagan took it to heart first, then of course we have GWB with John Yoo and David Addison driving the worst aspects of it, those that Trump here is utilizing ("I have an Article II...")
I agree, those rules are important so why did people who have claimed for so long
Re: (Score:3)
Domestic Officials (Score:2)
What about our domestic officials who are currently issuing or threatening arrest warrants and deportation on U.S. citizens , U.S. residents and students for protected speech on U.S. soil?
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is Fox didn’t report on this. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.foxnews.com/media/... [foxnews.com]
They did actually. The statement was even made during a Fox interview. Probably the talking heads didn't screech it though, so someone would have to actually be paying attention or able to read to catch it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.foxnews.com/media/... [foxnews.com]
American hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:American hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
I’d rather the US not act like Iran or Russia. But that’s just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
With the exception of political rights (voting, running for office and such) any country with the rule of law treats guests the same as citizens, that includes due process to kick someone out.
Re: (Score:2)
From my countries Constitution,
Re: (Score:2)
The mental gymnastics you use to justify this shit... I'm losing all sympathy for the people of the USA. A majority of you voted for this shit, and a significant chunk of you bend over backwards to justify it and cheer for it. You deserve the results.
Strange (Score:2)
What a bunch of snowflakes and assholes.
What we should do (Score:2)
Great. I think Canada should just ban the large American social media platforms completely.
Not based on things people post. But based on the platforms' business model. People would be absolutely free to say whatever they want, but corporations would not be free to use the banned business model.
Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
It is "unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil" and "for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States.
I feel like I'm in some kind of matrix world lately. Like things are "real." A US secretary of state saying things that are obviously correct, have been in desperate need of saying for neigh on 20+ years now, and actually acting on their words on behalf of US citizens?
What timeline is this?
Re: (Score:2)
What timeline is this?
Not one where those unacceptable things have actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
The head of police is now threatening extradition and jail time to U.S. citizens for online posts allegedly egging on the violence from afar.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley: "We will throw the full force of the law at people and whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online we will come after you."
Whatever the fuck "egging on" means. [cbsaustin.com]
Rubiobot wants to make sure Americans can't be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rules for thee and not for me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Try posting anti-Trump stuff on your social media and having the DHS/SS goons find it at an immigration checkpoint.
Actually, definitely don't. Especially if you're not white. Just avoid the US as it continues to slide into fascism.
WTF has Rubio been smoking (Score:5, Insightful)
We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty
Dude, American sovereignty ends at America's borders. If your tech giants can't find a way to obey European regulations in Europe, while continuing to do whatever America allows them to do in America, then too bad, so sad, oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe developing their own tech services would be the best thing for them. (And to the detriment of the US tech giants, though not in any existential way.)
After that, maybe Europe can offer those improved services to Americans.
While they're at it, I'd welcome some regime change from overseas as well. We helped them out in the 40s, I think they should return the favor.
Re: (Score:2)
While they're at it, I'd welcome some regime change from overseas as well. We helped them out in the 40s, I think they should return the favor.
Give it time. The US didn't enter WWII until 7 or 8 years after Hitler rose to power; Trump's been in office for just over 4 months.
Re: (Score:2)
American sovereignty ends at America's borders... This is something America has NEVER believed.
And they've peppered the world with military bases to prove it!
Re: (Score:2)
And they've peppered the world with military bases to prove it!
And now Trump wants to close those bases and you retards will complain about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, stop with the strawmen. This is about Americans posting on a social media platform incorporated in America being charged with crimes by European assholes because they don't like that we can say whatever the fuck we want. I'm glad we finally have an administration willing to give Europe the bird over that insane shit. If they don't like it they can blackhole the addresses but under no circumstances whatsoever should they ever be allowed to dictate the limits of American speech.
After reading this - https://dsa-observatory.eu/202... [dsa-observatory.eu] - I'm still unable to find anything supporting Rubio's contention that the EU will "issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil". So if you can show me a credible source that says American citizens posting in America will be "charged with crimes" by the EU, I'd be happy to condemn the EU for attempting bogus extraterritorial lawfare.
Now, if you're
Re: (Score:2)
The London police chief said something vaguely threatening when asked in an interview about Americans stirring up riots by posting lies on social media.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nat... [cbsaustin.com]
Because no American offical has ever said something dumb to a reporter....
Americans suppressing free speech (Score:3)
Let's be clear here. When I do it, it's God's Fucking Work. When you do it, it's a crime.
Honestly, Rubio, Trump, the rest of you hypocrites, just fuck off.
Convenient (Score:2)
"It's not yet clear how or against whom the policy will be enforced"
The handiest type of policy.
Except Israelis, of course (Score:2)
Pakistan Case (Score:3)
Blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan. This applies to you even if you are US citizen and post from US and they think it is a blasphemy. They can arrest you and execute you if you ever visit to Pakistan. This is the law and no government official will deny it or will say they will not implement.
Similar laws may exist in many other countries.
Will US ban Pakistan (and other countries') official's visa? I bet it won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Commence ... (Score:2)
... circle ... er, activity, lol
Orwell prescient again. Except for the duration of the daily hate. If only it were only two minutes ...
Laughable (Score:2)
Meanwhile censorship of legal visa holders ongoing (Score:2)
Meanwhile here in the US, government officials are busy combing through social media looking for things people say that are critical of the regime, or things that sound woke. Of course that's okay because the people targeted are non-citizens here on valid visas. So far anyway. Supporters don't feel that the constitution applies to legal guests.
I've spoken to several people in the US who are dual citizens, and they are being told by immigration lawyers (yes these citizens feel the need to consult immigrati
Protect free speech! (Score:2)
"...especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech."
Let's stand resolute in our protection of free speech! Especially for the right to say that our president loves TACOs. He loves to eat TACOs so much, he was asked by a reporter how much he loved TACOs. Trump's response? He loves them so much, he could eat 8,657 of them!
Just love that free speech!
No law apart from American law (Score:2)
What Rubio is effectively saying is that American law will apply everywhere and override any national laws.
It supports the fact that Xitter has refused to remove a video showing a stabbing video [ft.com], viewed by someone who went on to stab three children and was wrongly characterised on social media [politico.eu] as an illegal immigrant and Muslim, even though he was born in the UK and Christian.
The UK also has laws that prevent the harassment of women attending family planning clinics. These too have been characterised as cen
Re: (Score:2)
How the law is sold: Preventing other nations from censoring American truth
What the law is for: Preventing other nations from adding fact checking to reports that Emperor Trump is clothed.
Very funny (Score:2)
Ban the foreigners from coming who already banned themselves from coming to thee US:
Brainworm bringing back classic diseases (Score:2)
Marco!
Polio!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry is it still 1946? Did we just come out of the worst conflict in human history? I'd like to think I keep up with the news...
Re: (Score:2)