AT&T blocks 4chan, home of weird smut

[ixion]

Source: The Register

AT&T has apparently blocked DSL access to popular bulletin board and bad taste depository 4chan.

The image site is the home of LOLcats and thousands of other, less pleasant, internet images. The boards cover bizarre Japanese animation along with other rather niche adult content.

But apart from hosting weird tentacle porn the site is also home to what are now very angry hackers. Sarah Palin's emails first surfaced on the site and its boards were an early focus for the Anonymous anti-Scientology protest group, so they are not a group with whom to mess.

A 4chan admin called 'moot' said on Sunday that AT&T were filtering or blocking the site. Moot asked AT&T customers to call the telco to complain. He said no one from AT&T had contacted 4chan.

Read more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/27/att_censorship_block/

---

So, AT&T, who gleefully violated the 4th Amendment, is now gleefully violating the 1st.

This is what happens when you don't prosecute companies for blatantly illegal behavior: they start to get brave and push the line.


Also found a x-post in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6159187

[Teaser]

1. what nasty shit is going to happen to AT&T this week?

.

[Jester Messiah]

19. I'm sure it will be a wonder and a horror to behold. [nt]

[dysfunctional press]

2. we're dropping our at&t service this week...

the comcast guy is coming tomorrow to do the install.
we're dropping directv too...overall, it's going to save us over $100 per month.

[ixion]

3. Yeah, I dropped my at/t cell service several years ago because

of a billing issue. I moved to a new city and they told me I had to then open a new account, so I did. I paid the balance on the old account, which they did not record, nor did they notify me until they sent the account to a collection agency. It took two months a host of phone calls totaling several hours on the phone before it was finally worked out. I have never used them since.

[angstlessk]

4. I am on AT&T and I get LOLcats...whaz up?

[ixion]

5. interesting...

maybe shining the light on them has caused them to scurry back under the cracks.

[FarrenH]

6. LOLCats originated on 4Chan, but

can be found on many other sites now. If AT&T are blocking 4Chan, it doesn't mean you won't be able to access a bunch of lolcat sites like Icanhazcheezburger.

This is 4chan

http://www.4chan.org/

[Gregorian]

26. 4chan ripped off B3TA.

We originate everything!

[angstlessk]

60. I was at lolcats.com..not the other sites...I can click on your link

but chose not to peruse the site as I am not into adult content, and not sure where I will end up?

[Renew Deal]

65. Click it

You'll be fine. Besides, I want to know if it works.

[hobbit709]

7. I'm on ATT DSL and have no problem

Of course I don't use their crappy Internet access software which is probably where the problem is.
I've never had access to a site denied by them and I've been to plenty of restricted" sites.

[JackInGreen]

15. From what

we understand, it's confined to the Southern California markets, least, last I heard, but I just woke up.

[Piewhacket]

28. i'm blocked.

[brendan120678]

8. AT&T isn't the Government...

Their blocking access to 4Chan doesn't constitute a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Rebubula]

9. It is amazing...

...how many people (and not just on DU) do not understand that.

No one other than the Government of the US can violate the 1st Amendment.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. "No one other than the Government of the US can violate the 1st Amendment."

Applies to state and local government councils, school boards, administrations, water authorities, officials, etc. too, yes?

[melm00se]

16. the 1st amendment text

is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

so this applies specifically to the Federal government. Many, if not all states, have similar wording in their state constitutions.

But ultimately, these strictures apply to government and government only.

[uberllama42]

43. The First Amendment applies to states and local governments as well

The Supreme Court ruled in Gitlow v. New York (1925) that First Amendment free speech protection is enforceable against states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press — which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress — are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States...

Incidentally, the Court denied the specific claim being made against the State of New York in that case. Gitlow was a communist or some such, and they ruled that his pamphlets were a material danger to public safety. But in principle he was protected from the state in the same way as he was protected from the federal government.

As has been stated above, the First Amendment has no power over AT&T.

[Rebubula]

17. Application

It applies to any level of government that has the power to enact laws. Specifically laws that enforce standards for speech.


So...a sort of yes to your snarky question.

[caseymoz]

50. AT&T gathers info for the government, can it block information for the government?

Though technically you are correct, we really have to watch and respond to any corporate carrier blocking of information that the government can then exploit, especially in the days when the government regulators (and staffers and even elected officials) and the corporate heads are now, basically, the same people. Sad to say but true. It should be treated as a threat to free speech-- as in laying the groundwork for something much worse.

Just like with spying on citizens, you see, it can all be done "voluntarily." No laws, no regulations. Somebody in government (or a lobbyist) at a cocktail party suggests nicely that a website should not be seen, and by Monday the website returns a 404 error. In retrospect, the government simply passes laws that excuse this.

Really, people need to simply cancel with AT&T when they do this, and contact the government (whoever they can) to prevent further attempts at abridging access to information, especially on the Internet which is now becoming the most important source of information in society. Carriers should not be allowed to strangle it.

[DBoon]

23. They are a federally regulated common carrier

so at least to their telcom services, the first amendment does apply

Court cases have held that private entities may also be required to protect first amendment rights. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins for example


You may want to do a bit of research before repeating freeper talking points

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Do you have precedent for that and does it apply to the internet

There are conflicting provisions that allow the ISP to protect their network. Also what are filters allowed on library stations?

Not saying you are wrong, but looking for some depth here.

[Piewhacket]

54. Professor... 8 years of criminality, and ATT still got immunity. Even if not dead...

and eloquent arguments notwithstanding,
free speech can be crippled whenever they say.

Depth you ask? A 400 page impeccable brief presented in
high places would have only the effect of killing another
tree that didn't deserve to die.

sigh. I'm getting too old and cynical for this job.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. That was not the question I asked

The poster asserted that as a FCC regulated Common carrier, AT&T had to uphold first amendment protections. I am looking for some more depth on that assertion. There are a number of conflicting laws and was hoping the poster would respond with some citations or court decisions

[Piewhacket]

73. Depth? "Uphold First Amendment"? Sigh. Are you a professor of law? Or just curious.

Why not ask it from a different point of view.
It is axiomatic there can be no right without a remedy, professor.
So why not ask a lawyer's question? Ask "What if they don't?"

see before:
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (Nassau Cty. 1995)

then after:
Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.), cert. denied, 151 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2001)

ATT (SBC) hardly worries about rule of law or courts. But arguendo,
if ATT steps out of the role of common carrier by controlling content, then what would
they be? Why would they want to do that? Who else would they piss off (net neutrality).
Wouldn't forces start to array against them?

I'm actually a bit worried they are being so nice. They aren't actually nice, so that means
they are nervous about something reeeeally bad. I shudder to consider what that might be
:hide:

In the end I'm saying its a political, not a legal problem. A very nasty, dangerous political problem.
And telecom immunity in the face of CLEAR AND LONGSTANDING LEGAL PRECEDENT of criminality
for the surveillance they have been doing signals the magnitude of the problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Actaully I was looking at it from an anti-spam perspective

Some spammers have asserted 1st amendment rights to spam. Uniformly that approach has not been supported in the courts. ISP and Tier I one and below bandwidth providers have all at one time or another discontinued service for things other than non-payment. Its a form of speech control, but one supported contractually and by the courts.

[Piewhacket]

78. OK, so you are not a professor of law, and I'm not a fan of SPAM.

I'm reluctant to expend brainpower supporting the rights of spammers.

For openers nearly 50% of e-mail traffic in the United States is unsolicited
commercial e-mail advertisements (SPAM) it exacts a cost well over 10 billlion
dollars in the US and this blight has gravely damaged the utility of what should
have been one of the most successful tools of the modern age. Nearly 80% of
the people demand that it be made illegal notwithstanding any 1st amendment
claims and a majority want it criminalized (with the death penalty!).
So thats one side.

On the other hand, as any scholar of the first amendment knows well,
COMMERCIAL SPEECH is afforded less protection than individual "free" speech
and may in fact be subject to reasonable regulation of both time, place,
and MANNER of presentment and of CONTENT. In fact here in California its so
"reasonably regulated" as to be basically illegal, or at least very pricey
($1,000 fine for each unsolicited commercial email).

Since its illegal, ATT has no problem terminating service for spammers, since
the contract prohibits any illegal activity. Of course, a spammer might argue his
first amendment rights in a breach of contract dispute, but what with attorney fees included
in the contract that will be one bloody expensive argument if he loses, which is likely.
A BETTER argument for the person against ATT is this: "It wasn't me!". But then, it better not be.

And even if he wins the spammer will be outed and will have to
basically 'leave the planet'. A great Pyrrhic victory for the first amendment!

and FINALLY, need I say it, as serious a threat spammers might be it is utterly
inconsequential compared to the "power of the force" of ATT just one day deciding
it is to their economic and political advantage to regulate free speech on the net.
After all, no law is apparently going to stop them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. The anti spam laws are weak to the point of being unenforceable

The CAN SPAM law is better known as I CAN SPAM in the technical community.

The only thing that was ever effective in stopping spamming was blacklisting. MAPS, SPEWS, ROSKO, and others. It was decried as unaccountable vigilantism, which it pretty much was. Entire net blocks being listed because there was one bad apple that the ISP would not address. Sometimes it got to the point were entire ISPs were blocked. Lots of controversies, big companies suing BL managers into submission etc. LLots of things moved to countries with favorable court systems and the like. Its still ongoing. No major spammer has been terminated because it was illegal, they were terminated because continuing to host them was more painful than their $ was worth to the hosting company.

AT&T can choose to null route certain IP addresses or blocks. Its their network, its their call. The internet is a large collection of private domains and pipes run cooperatively. Its also designed to route around disruptions. If AT&T goes content rogue, I expect it would be a minor inconvenience for the most part except for their end users.

And yes I am not a law professor. I have better taste than to be a lawyer. I teach stuff with real laws and where decimal points matter.

[Piewhacket]

80. SPAM is commercial speech.

Not the same problem.

Your concern seems to relate to the appearance of vigilantism by ISPs against spammers
following the CAN-SPAM Act passed by George W. Bush and Cronies in 2003 (which actually
protected spammers). While OVER-regulation might be a concern, the reasonable regulation
or UNDER-regulation of SPAM does not raise free speech issues. As for the "vigilantism",
are you confident that is not merely a hyperbolic charge for what might be a simple breech
of contract, but even if it were so, and there are damages to a business or such, or
employee misconduct, it is usually something the courts can sort out. Not quite the same problem
as ATT suppressing political or other protected expression.

Decimal points matter in all things. May I suggest nothing could be more "real" to you than a law
that results in your imprisonment or execution, or even inflicts upon your person 8 years
of the most corrupt, incompetent, malicious, and criminal government of modern times.

Instead it is science that is the fantasy, don't you see, a world of imaginary
constructs, governed by inscrutable rules, mathematical fabrications as ludicrous as
Maxwell's equations or worse, populated by incomprehensible beings called
electrons and quarks which have fantastically ridiculous properties like "spin" and "charm".
It is insanity, sir. Alice in Wonderland madness and lunacy.

Please, my dear professor, please have a care what you declare as "reality", lest someone
think you beyond odd.

[Rebubula]

30. This is why...

...some people are leaving this site.

The poster that you referred to 'may' be incorrect (still not sure that Pruneyard applies to this case - still reading the case file) about ATTs responsibility to the 1st Amendment - but to automatically call him a 'freeper' is over the top and completely rude. And by implying that there are using 'freeper' talking points is the same thing.

[One of Many]

41. +1

That was a jerk-off thing to say.

[Realityhack]

53. Those protectiosn do NOT extend to internet access at this time.

So I don't think it is fair to accuse anyone of repeating Freeper talking points.

[Realityhack]

52. That is a very good point.

And this seems like a very good time to talk about network neutrality and the idea of extending the telecom protections and responsibilities to internet providers.

In which case access would be protected.

Too bad more people do not understand this issue.

[bc3000]

10. Last I heard, this is incorrect

I think 4chan is suffering from a DDOS attack, not an AT&T block. Then again, maybe not. All of the facts do not seem to be in on this yet and AT&T have not confirmed any kind of block.

In the meantime, if you are curious about the seedy underbelly of the internet you can try the Encyclopedia Dramatica to get an idea of what you are missing. If you don't find things like racism and rape to be hilarious, you may want to avoid it.

[JackInGreen]

14. Bc3000

Not anymore, however, it happens occasionally...
In regards to racism and rape being funny....EVERYTHING is funny, when looked at from the right light, and often it's the only way I personally find any respite for sanity in this world.

[Tarc]

31. I love the ED

It rips to shreds many of the anal retentive twists of the Wikipedia.

[caseymoz]

55. I just reached it myself on ATT DSL. nt

[ck4829]

11. AT&T restores access, 4chan suspends planned "raids" against AT&T

From the announcement page of "Project AT&T":

"AT&T has lifter their ban. All rioting/'war'/protests have been suspended for the time being."

http://z6.invisionfree.com/ProjectATT/

[Qutzupalotl]

63. Okay, thanks. nt

[JackInGreen]

13. For those that are my b rothers and lad y s

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As a friend of Anon, we would like to inform you that this will not go unanswered.
We do not forget, We do not Forgive.

[TheModernTerrorist]

18. /b/ never forgets, never forgives

esp. if you trollin' amirite?

[philly_bob]

20. Good to see there are some 4chan defenders on DU.

I thought DU and 4chan were incompatible and opposite sides of my soul -- the grown up fellow and the mischievous bad boy.

A question on whether a private company can break the first amendment: doesn't it make a difference if they're regulated by the government?

[Teaser]

22. not a defender, not an antagonist either.

there's some nasty shit there, but that just reflects how open it is. It's a mirror to humankind's soul, and there is some nasty shit deep down there too.

[LoZoccolo]

46. If you want a cross between both try 4-ch.net/politics/

Channel 4 is like 4chan's slightly more mature older brother. But it's still anonymous. After hanging out on these anonymous boards for a while, I find them superior to some place like DU with pages of rules and inter-user drama. If someone says something you don't like, you deal with it. A bunch of the manipulative tactics and whining that goes on here disappear when no one knows who anybody is. And there's a sense that there's no running to mommy and daddy. And effectively no bullshit (can't use the word I want to here) about what belongs here and what doesn't, because you really can't stop it. I've considered starting a chan with an emphasis on politics as well.

[Posteritatis]

58. Even if it doesn't, they're still what, a third or fifth or so of US net subscribers?

I'm not comfortable saying "oh, that's fine then" just because it wasn't Washington ordering it.

[Javaman]

21. at&t formally swbell:gigantic rightwing nut contributors, will certainly regret this move.

/b/ is a site not to be fucked with.

what basically at&t has just done is issued a challenge for the members of that site to basically go medieval on at&t's ass.

this will not be pretty, but I will admit I will be amused by the fallout from all of this.

I'm curious as to when the first massive "denial of service" cyber attack begins.

Think Robert DeNiro's character in the movie Brazil.

This was a colossally dumb move by at&t.

The net is viral. It's like trying to herd cat who are high on crack and tweaking on meth.

[TheMightyFavog]

35. /b/ is the asshole of the Internet.

When you fuck with the asshole of the Internet, expect to get shit on.

[Richd506]

24. Uh oh... Any sane person knows not to fuck with 4chan

If AT&T gets raided by anonymous it's their own damn fault

[Piewhacket]

25. (checking out 4chan) Blocked (or DOS) Dang, I need to get out more often.

[1monster]

29. Nevermind. (a la Gilda Radner)

[PeaceNikki]

32. They already got an iReport on CNN that the prez of AT&T was found dead of a cocaine overdose.

This will go well.

:poopcorn:

http://news.cnet.com/digital-media/?keyword=AT%26T

[dave29]

33. beholdz! teh riz of teh basement cat

[tjwash]

34. Looks like AT&T is blocking it for virus reasons.

A whole heap of AT&T /b/tard customers, have a DDOS worm, that attacks 4chan, so they are blocking it, until the affected customers clean up their act.

Although ATT should have taken the high road and and "rubber roomed" them, meaning push them off to a separate net with no outgoing port 25, then they log on and get redirected to a friendly warning page, telling them that virus activity has been detected, with links to anti virus providers.

[JackInGreen]

36. sorry

that might be the official line, but it's not the truth.

[ElboRuum]

47. O RLY?!

No wai!

[Jazzgirl]

42. AT&T hasn't allowed anything through port 25 for a while.

That can't be right.

[KamaAina]

69. Could we please drop the -tard suffix?

One of my favorite human beings has an intellectual disability (the term "retarded" is considered obsolete and offensive). She also has a beautiful soul and gives THE best hugs in the business! :loveya:

[Teaser]

72. /b/ tards are what they are called.

not just because it rhymes with "retard", but also because it looks like bastard.

Given that, you can ask them to change what they call themselves over on /b/.

Hopefully they will only make fun of you, and not destroy your credit or find your address out and tell the cops you are distributing child porn.

[anigbrowl]

37. AT&T can't violate the 1st amendment. Only the government can do that.

I wish people would get their constitutional thinking straightened out. Incidentally, I spend a fair amount of time on 4chan, and we're not sitting around whining about the constitution, especially given that it doesn't have anything to do with this situation even if AT&T was maliciously blocking the site.

[Tarc]

38. 4chan was getting an ACK flood

Others blocked access of a time as well, but all is mostly restored now No mass conspiracies here, just bored script kiddies.

[Posteritatis]

59. 4chan's *always* under DDoS, but rarely blackholed at the ISP level. (nt)

[Steerpike]

39. I don't get it....

There is so much smut on the internet, what is the point?

[One of Many]

40. Even if

AT&T did block the site I don't see how that is a violation of the 1st. "4chan" owns their content but the AT&T network is owned by AT&T. There is no law I'm aware of saying that have to transmit anyone's information on their network.

This would be like saying the NY Times violated someone's rights because they wouldn't publish a letter to the editor or a family portrait on page 1.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but is there something I'm missing here? (legally speaking, not opinions per se)

[Piewhacket]

48. ATT is regulated and may not selectively suppress content which is otherwise legal.

The blocking of /b/ may occur to protect their network
and subscribers from illegal traffic (viruses and hacking),
but the measures better be REASONABLE and NECESSARY.

[One of Many]

56. Why?

Again, why do you say that this is true? By what precedent?

or example I could see value in a service offering by an internet provider that blocked porn and other adult material. As a parent I could see that provided as a value-added service to a household.

Television (was) broadcast on public airwaves but they were not forced to broadcast "adult" material from or through their equipment in deference to the 1st amendment.

Why should a network provider be any different?

[Piewhacket]

57. because... people would be exceedingly pissed (we might hope).

If you are looking for a legal brief, consult a lawyer.
However, just conversationally,

(a) as I said they may block illegal content, such as "child pornography"
and harmful content, such as "computer viruses", and may otherwise protect
their network from malicious actions, such as DOS attacks. This is all
very ordinary. And there is no objection if YOU use a content filter.

(b) and they may "broadcast" what they will of web content, no one is
stopping them, but in general they do not seek to be the "broadcaster"
but the "carrier" of internet traffic and are therefore (mostly)
immune from liability for the content (citations omitted). They
kinda like that status, and would not jeopardize it, for if they did
control content someone might argue they WERE the broadcaster
and if they WERE the broadcaster....

you can see the problem now, right?

(c) there is also the problem of net neutrality, sherman antitrust act,
Mann act of 1913, and the general prohibition against felonious mopery,
repeal of telecom immunity, just to mention a few other considerations.

(d) and did I mention a lot of people would be extraordinarily pissed?
that too. amazing what hijinks people can get up to when they are really pissed.

[One of Many]

66. Very interesting

Thanks. You are right they are now in a position as a carrier, not a content provider. Once they take that leap it likely would open them to all manner of FCC regulation, lawsuits, etc.

They are really acting more like the transport mechanism (paper boy) rather than the content provider / publisher (NY Times).

Still I wonder about the idea of the "Family Net" as a service offering, could they legally do such a thing even if it was technically possible which I would doubt very much.

Thanks for your post.

[Piewhacket]

67. I think AOL tried it in the 90s...

but I Haven't heard of any "Family Net" type services recently.
Probably a reason for that?

there is some software that makes blocking easy,
but I'm not in the market as I have no young children to supervise.

its pretty useless anyway because
basically you have to block everything (including google) except
select sites and so brain-damage your browser that your kids end up
brain damaged too, and frankly I'd rather my progeny learn to
deal with the world instead of being victimized by it.

in short: young children should be personally supervised on the net,
because there are a lot more serious and dangerous problems out there
than porn, frankly. and lets face it, electronic net nanny's just
aren't up to raising children. yet. maybe by 2084.

my pleasure.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. You are ignoring the precedents set during the spam wars

Any network can block/not forward/null route packets from any IP they choose not to. Well settled at this point. No reason is legally required. Strong private property aspects to this. It could be used for political reasons but history to date has shown its done mostly for spam and net abuse. There is no law that says the email must go through.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. No such test of reasonableness exists

We went though this in the Spam Wars...courts and contracts are clear. There is no law that says the email must go through.

[Jkid]

44. I'm a regular 4chan user.

And I think there should have been a better way to deal with this. Even though I'm not using AT&T, the entire website is still going through a DDoS onslaught.

Also I don't go to /b/, even though most of the media coverage on 4chan focuses only on /b/.

[crispini]

45. I have AT&T DSL and I have no problem. nt

[Piewhacket]

49. er... fox has threatened to sue you and you say you "have no problem"? Dude!

[crispini]

61. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I responded to the OP which said that AT&T was blocking 4chan. I said that I have no problem accessing 4chan through my AT&T DSL. What were you referring to?

[Piewhacket]

62. Your avatar. lol. a joke? Yknow, Obillo's head exploding is a perfectly legal avatar(AFAIK).

sorry if I was too obscure. you said you "had no problem" but your
avatar claims a legal threat from fox. Given fox's proclivity for
frivolous lawsuits I'd say that was more than "no problem".
Still, some things are worth fighting for (Obillo's exploding head).

Anyway, I figured you were just dorking around. So I dorked you.
But you wouldn't be the first to miss the subtleties of
my 'sense o humor'.

BTW looks like 4chan is still blocked or under DOS attack, no links to them
work for me (I'm on a 3rd party ISP, but through att).

[crispini]

71. Haha, I completely forgot I had that as my avatar.

I was wondering if there was something in the thread about Fox that I'd missed. :silly:

[backscatter712]

51. I wonder how far they're wanting to go with this.

Supposedly, it's all over - AT&T responded to user protests, and came up with a better tactic to deal with DDOS attacks that didn't involve cutting off 4chan, so they took off the block.

But what if technical reasons wasn't the real reason why they cut them off? You think that the corporate masters of the universe would be straight with us when they were trying to censor the Internet?

What if a few months or years from now, they refined their techniques a bit.

All of the sudden, 4chan's up & down & completely unreliable because of "hackers", "spammers," "DDOS attacks," "technical difficulties?"

Then they move on. Democratic Underground gets hit with mysterious connectivity outages when we're trying to rally voters in the next election. "Whoops, some construction worker put backhoe right through your trunk lines! We promise we'll have it back up in a couple of weeks..."

When people are arguing about net copyright issues and dealing with the RIAA/MPAA, all of the sudden, Slashdot & Ars Technica are down due to "contract disputes with their ISPs."

They'll have a hundred different excuses ready when we call them out for taking our sites down.

What they're doing is figuring out ways to selectively censor the net without getting blamed.

Remember, they want the Internet to look like this...

[Renew Deal]

64. Why should ISP's be able to decide which sites their customers visit?

This seems to be a violation of the right to privacy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. Their network, their rules

The legal authority came out of the spam wars, where it was recognized that the email does not have to go through and ISPs do not have to transit packets to all IPs. The basis of this was stopping spam.

No major carrier or ISP blocks for adult or political content to my knowledge, but they could if they chose to.

[EndersDame]

68. Go Back To Russia AT&T We Don't Need Any of Your Censorship Here

Damn Commies tryin' to control content of everything :silly:
But seriously, This is America and we like Freedom Here