At Claremont McKenna, the left again shuts down free speech.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Mr Person said:
I really wish the people who complained the loudest about "free speech" bothered to learn when it is implicated and when it is not.

I think you may be confusing the concept of "free speech" with "the First Amendment." The two are not synonymous, and the implications pertaining to them do not fully overlap.

Trippy Trekker · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
What "truth"? You offered nothing but a line of insults.

You did not answer my questions about your posts.

So, I'll ask again:

And:

Can you answer these questions, or are you just going to post more insults instead?

Different day, same stubborn Harshaw. I answered the questions. As usual, either you didn't bother to find my answers or you didn't like my answers.

If I have seen farther it is by standing on the Shoulders of Giants Sir Isaac Newtown

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Trippy Trekker said:
Different day, same stubborn Harshaw. I answered the questions. As usual, either you didn't bother to find my answers or you didn't like my answers.

So you insult, and you lie. You did not even try to answer those questions.

Good grief, man; if you're going to lie that you answered, at least do it in a thread with 400+ posts so it could maybe be plausible that your "answers" were missed along the way.

As it stands, here are all (5!) of your previous posts in this <30-post thread:

Trippy Trekker said:
What a cop out. You totally fail to see the irony of you doing nothing to protect a member of your political family, Heather, then you blame unnamed Leftist Leaders for not stopping her detractors.

Picture this scenario - Don't blame me for failing to provide care and welfare for my children. That responsibility lies elsewhere.

Trippy Trekker said:
Delusion much?
If you want to improve your mental clarity, add oxygen to that Fake News Filter Bubble you live in.

Trippy Trekker said:
Grim17 in post #7 posted a link to MacDonald's speech... meaning protesters did not prevent the speech. The protest according to at least one source increased exposure to the speech. The added publicity encourages further discussion on at least several topics, including racial issues, the role of police in society, the realm of Free Speech on college campuses and protesting etiquette.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...and-crime-prevents-event-taking-place-planned

Trippy Trekker said:
You continue to display your impressive intransigence. Why would I share my recipe for success with someone stingy that I don't like? The last time we met on a thread, we absolutely did not part on friendly terms. My opinion of you has yet to change. The Lion does not want to lay down with the Lamb today.

Trippy Trekker said:
There you go again. You just can't handle the truth.

I asked you questions about your 1st and 3rd posts. Your "answers" to my questions do not appear in any of the others.

You insult, and you lie. And yet you continually say I'm the one who has trouble with "truth and logic."

holbritter · Apr 12, 2017

Trippy Trekker said:
Different day, same stubborn Harshaw. I answered the questions. As usual, either you didn't bother to find my answers or you didn't like my answers.

If I have seen farther it is by standing on the Shoulders of Giants Sir Isaac Newtown

Uhm, no, you didn't.

apdst · Apr 12, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
That's not how the 1st amendment works, your fellow citizens have every right to protest you. Considering she's on live national TV I don't know how you can possibly pretend she's being silenced. Frankly, someone categorically stupid enough to go around announcing that there is no racial bias in our justice system isn't to be taken seriously in the first place.

Oh? And what are those rock-hard statistics that show racism is dead in America and our justice system works equally well for all races? Please present it so we can see it.

Wait, so right after you declare this protest as "the left", you admit that there are no leaders from the left that organized this? Why haven't GOP leaders actively involved themselves in KKK matters to better control their supporters? If I didn't know better, I'd say that the powers that be on the right and in the GOP are quite content with the use of violence to stifle minorities they disagree with.

Your fellow citizens don't have a right to physically suppress the excercise of your civil rights. Ku Kux Klowns can't block black folks from the voting booth and these students can't block people from attending this presentation.

apdst · Apr 12, 2017

faithful_servant said:
That's been my question for quite a while and I've NEVER gotten an answer for it. We have people carrying out riots in support of Dem. causes and there is a deafening silence from any significant leaders on the left. We have people working to silence voices they disagree with and the party that used to champion opposition to this kind of thing is silent on the issue.

The Left knows that if opposing voices are allowed to be heard, then the Liberal agenda is totally ****ed.

Mr Person · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
I think you may be confusing the concept of "free speech" with "the First Amendment." The two are not synonymous, and the implications pertaining to them do not fully overlap.

Talk about weasel words! Maybe one of the dumber judges would fall for that, but:

A. Of course they are not synonymous, as the First Amendment grants more rights than just the right to free speech.

B. You are simply wrong. "Free speech" does indeed refer to the right to free speech, which right is contained in the First Amendment (before you split any more hairs, its language is actually "...prohibits the making of any law...abridging the freedom of speech") and generally echoed in state constitutions. I don't have Black's in front of me (but hey, only Scalia really gave a **** about it), but everything else explicitly ties it to the First Amendment because of course it does: that's what it means.

The entire point of using the words "free" or "freedom of" in reference to "speech" is to invoke the constitutional protection. Because (1) as I said, ****ing duh, (2) there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government. It's where the term comes from and it's what the term refers to. It does not mean speech generally.

C. If one doesn't mean to refer to the right to free speech, then one says "speech." It's a term of art and we both know it, so drop the silliness.

You are splitting hairs to defend someone on the right, and not even for a marginally decent reason. We both know it.

Cease.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Mr Person said:
Talk about weasel words! Maybe one of the dumber judges would fall for that, but:

A. Of course they are not synonymous, as the First Amendment grants more rights than just the right to free speech.

B. You are simply wrong. "Free speech" does indeed refer to the right to free speech, which right is contained in the First Amendment and generally echoed in state constitutions. I don't have Black's in front of me (but hey, only Scalia really gave a **** about it), but everything else explicitly ties it to the First Amendment because of course it does: that's what it means.

The entire point of using the words "free" or "freedom of" in reference to "speech" is to invoke the constitutional protection. Because (1) as I said, ****ing duh, (2) there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government.

C. If one doesn't mean to refer to the right to free speech, then one says "speech." It's a term of art and we both know it, so drop the silliness.

You are splitting hairs to defend someone on the right, and not even for a marginally decent reason. We both know it.

Cease.

I'm not splitting any hairs.

A respect for free speech is something which exists outside of any First Amendment concerns. IF you are trying to silence someone, whoever you are, you are not respecting the principle of free speech. You are also not respecting someone else's right to free speech by trying to shut them down simply because you disagree with them. No, you may not be the government, but are you really going to argue that only the government can violate someone's rights? If so, I have a zillion other questions for you.

You, for your part, obviously want to limit the concept of "free speech" only to First Amendment concerns, i.e., government censorship.

But government censorship is not, and never was, the point here. These things occur on university campuses, the purpose of which is supposed be free thought, free inquiry, and free exchange of ideas -- which includes the respect for those concepts.

LIBERALISM is about respecting each other's rights, and respecting the principle of free speech at the very least.

So no, I'm splitting no hairs. You apparently just don't get the concept.

Mr Person · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
I'm not splitting any hairs.

A respect for free speech is something which exists outside of any First Amendment concerns. IF you are trying to silence someone, whoever you are, you are not respecting the principle of free speech. You are also not respecting someone else's right to free speech by trying to shut them down simply because you disagree with them. No, you may not be the government, but are you really going to argue that only the government can violate someone's rights? If so, I have a zillion other questions for you.

You, for your part, obviously want to limit the concept of "free speech" only to First Amendment concerns, i.e., government censorship.

But government censorship is not, and never was, the point here. These things occur on university campuses, the purpose of which is supposed be free thought, free inquiry, and free exchange of ideas -- which includes the respect for those concepts.

LIBERALISM is about respecting each other's rights, and respecting the principle of free speech at the very least.

So no, I'm splitting no hairs. You apparently just don't get the concept.

Harshaw said:
I'm not splitting any hairs.

A respect for free speech is something which exists outside of any First Amendment concerns. IF you are trying to silence someone, whoever you are, you are not respecting the principle of free speech. You are also not respecting someone else's right to free speech by trying to shut them down simply because you disagree with them. No, you may not be the government, but are you really going to argue that only the government can violate someone's rights? If so, I have a zillion other questions for you.

You, for your part, obviously want to limit the concept of "free speech" only to First Amendment concerns, i.e., government censorship.

But government censorship is not, and never was, the point here. These things occur on university campuses, the purpose of which is supposed be free thought, free inquiry, and free exchange of ideas -- which includes the respect for those concepts.

LIBERALISM is about respecting each other's rights, and respecting the principle of free speech at the very least.

So no, I'm splitting no hairs. You apparently just don't get the concept.

There you go again. More weasel words.

Griom17 said "free speech" and I responded to "free speech." I know you saw the quotes and knew what they mean. I point out what you must know to be true if you are who you have claimed you are: "free speech" refers to the constitutional right.

Your response gives the lie to itself. Now you're off about "principle of" and "respect for" (not that that's much better). No. Grim talked about a "revolt against free speech", and I pointed out that what he's trying to talk about is definitely not "free speech." He's trying to complain about people being impolite and someone not giving a talk as a result, but he wanted to give it +50 hit points, so he did what conservatives generally do in this situation: invoke a constitutional right that doesn't apply. So he talked about "free speech" (them pesky quotes again, I know, but words do matter. You should know that.)

As for the bolded, it IS so limited, as explained. If one means to refer to an apple, one does not say "orange" and then claim that they're both generally fruit. Well, usually. You're trying to do it here, and it's quickly becoming a stupid waste of time.

" are you really going to argue that only the government can violate someone's rights? If so, I have a zillion other questions for you."

Are you really going to lie about what I said? That's what you have to do to deflect?

Sorry I wasted my time.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Mr Person said:
There you go again. More weasel words.

Griom17 said "free speech" and I responded to "free speech." I know you saw the quotes and knew what they mean. I point out what you must know to be true if you are who you have claimed you are: "free speech" refers to the constitutional right.

Your response gives the lie to itself. Now you're off about "principle of" and "respect for" (not that that's much better). No. Grim talked about a "revolt against free speech", and I pointed out that what he's trying to talk about is definitely not "free speech." He's trying to complain about people being impolite and someone not giving a talk as a result, but he wanted to give it +50 hit points, so he did what conservatives generally do in this situation: invoke a constitutional right that doesn't apply. So he talked about "free speech" (them pesky quotes again, I know, but words do matter. You should know that.)

As for the bolded, it IS so limited, as explained. If one means to refer to an apple, one does not say "orange" and then claim that they're both generally fruit. Well, usually. You're trying to do it here, and it's quickly becoming a stupid waste of time.

So . . . "nuh uh!"

Do you know what words Grim DIDN'T use? "First Amendment." Yet for some reason, MY using the words he actually DID use is "weaseling," while YOU wanting to substitute "First Amendment" isn't. Funny how that works. Funny, and eminently dishonest. And dare I say, "weaselly."

Look, the First Amendment is not the be-all and end-all of free speech. The First Amendment is not synonymous with "free speech." I've already explained to you why. That you think all free speech concerns MUST be First Amendment concerns only displays the limits of your thinking. And frankly, being educated on the matter, you have no excuse for that.

And THIS:

He's trying to complain about people being impolite and someone not giving a talk as a result,

Is about as dishonest and smarmy a description of the issue as one could muster.

You obviously cannot discuss this topic honestly.

Mr Person · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
So . . . "nuh uh!"

vs.

Harshaw said:
So no, I'm splitting no hairs. You apparently just don't get the concept.

Just...wow.

I won't even bother with the rest of a smarmy and dishonest post that, shockingly, accuses a portion of my post of being smarmy and dishonest.

:2wave:

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Mr Person said:
vs.

Just...wow.

What about it? This makes no sense at all.

I won't even bother with the rest of a smarmy and dishonest post that, shockingly, accuses a portion of my post of being smarmy and dishonest.

:2wave:

Oh, please. You have no response, because there is no response. You're just wrong.

eohrnberger · Apr 12, 2017

Grim17 said:
This time the left and their Black Lives Matter supporters shut down a speech by "The War on Cops" author Heather MacDonald.

The thought of people being exposed to actual facts, which of course threatens their phony narrative, was more than they could stand, so in typical anti-American fashion they did everything they could to shut the woman up.

This revolt against free speech is really getting out of hand.

.

What they are teaching these kids is just deplorable, and in the long run, could very well bring on a leftist fascism as the next major political wave to sweep the nation.
The future does NOT look bright.

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2017

Trippy Trekker said:
Grim17 in post #7 posted a link to MacDonald's speech... meaning protesters did not prevent the speech. The protest according to at least one source increased exposure to the speech. The added publicity encourages further discussion on at least several topics, including racial issues, the role of police in society, the realm of Free Speech on college campuses and protesting etiquette.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...and-crime-prevents-event-taking-place-planned

That was 30 minutes from an event that most times lasts 1-2 hours. Cops hustled her out right after she finished that video. Which means she did not get the chance to be heard fully. Plus people were barred by this mob from even entering the building. She talked in an empty room except 4 cops and to a live stream. Even had one professor that wanted to attend get assaulted for trying to enter. So yes, speech was prevented. Whether or not this exposure generates more talks in this issue is irrelevant to the fact that at that point in time a person was stopped from exercising their right to free speech fully by a mob using intimidation and fear tactics, and in the case off that professor at the least assault.

Mr Person · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
You have no response, because there is no response.

I know I'm right. I know you're wrong. I said why you were wrong but instead of responding directly to that, you lied about what my exchange with Grim was about, attacked me, and did at least three of the things you were attacking me for while attacking me. I know a rabbit hole when I see one, and I really don't feel like being sucked down into one.

So, again, bye!

:2wave:

Trippy Trekker · Apr 12, 2017

Harshaw said:
So you insult, and you lie. You did not even try to answer those questions.

Good grief, man; if you're going to lie that you answered, at least do it in a thread with 400+ posts so it could maybe be plausible that your "answers" were missed along the way.

As it stands, here are all (5!) of your previous posts in this <30-post thread:

I asked you questions about your 1st and 3rd posts. Your "answers" to my questions do not appear in any of the others.

You insult, and you lie. And yet you continually say I'm the one who has trouble with "truth and logic."

Sigh.... now you, in your enormous ignorance and in dim-witted fashion, have maliciously called me a Liar. If I dared let my raw emotions show, I might face unintended consequences. You low brow excuse for an Esquire did what you usually do. You either did not find or did not like my answers.

1. You routinely misconstrue Facts for Insults. 2. More people heard Heather's speech as a result of the protests, bringing important topics to the forefront for discussion. Refer to post #18. 3. You have given me absolutely no motivation whatsoever to explain to YOU how to protect Heather. I certainly do not expect YOU to explain to me how to protect a member of my political family. The responsibility to protect a member of one's family, rests with family members and friends of the family. Refer to post #21.

Stop trolling me. Maybe you can find a Support Group in the Real World.

Trippy Trekker · Apr 12, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
That was 30 minutes from an event that most times lasts 1-2 hours. Cops hustled her out right after she finished that video. Which means she did not get the chance to be heard fully. Plus people were barred by this mob from even entering the building. She talked in an empty room except 4 cops and to a live stream. Even had one professor that wanted to attend get assaulted for trying to enter. So yes, speech was prevented. Whether or not this exposure generates more talks in this issue is irrelevant to the fact that at that point in time a person was stopped from exercising their right to free speech fully by a mob using intimidation and fear tactics, and in the case off that professor at the least assault.

Please update me with any details you have regarding protesters arrested as a result of their activities. Heather made her Speech. Heather knew in advance to anticipate protesters resistant to her message. If someone interrupts me while I talk, have I suffered from lack of Free Speech Fully? I don't expect that slippery concept to gain much traction within the judicial system.
More people listened to Heather's speech as a result of the protests. Heather appeared to enjoy her TV interview. You may choose to paint a negative picture. I choose to paint a positive picture.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Mr Person said:
I know I'm right. I know you're wrong. I said why you were wrong but instead of responding directly to that, you lied about what my exchange with Grim was about, attacked me, and did at least three of the things you were attacking me for while attacking me. I know a rabbit hole when I see one, and I really don't feel like being sucked down into one.

So, again, bye!

:2wave:

Apparently in all that education, you never actually learned that the freedom of speech existed outside of the Constitution, and that the Bill of Rights only recognizes it.

You seem to think that the First Amendment is the SOURCE of it.

How does a law graduate make so fundamental a conceptual mistake?

How does one make such a reading mistake? "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" Does it say "we hereby confer the freedom of speech"? No. It refers to a pre-existing, independent right which Congress is not allowed to abridge. A right which exists, fully, outside of the government.

The way YOU describe it, such freedom does not exist if it weren't in the Bill of Rights, because there would be no First Amendment to "refer to" when invoking freedom of speech. The way YOU describe it, there was no freedom of speech before 1791, or whenever the state Bills of Rights came into being.

Again, how do you make this mistake?

But somehow, you DO make this mistake, and it leads you to say silly things like:

The entire point of using the words "free" or "freedom of" in reference to "speech" is to invoke the constitutional protection. Because (1) as I said, ****ing duh, (2) there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government.

And hence, the limits of your thinking.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Trippy Trekker said:
Sigh.... now you, in your enormous ignorance and in dim-witted fashion, have maliciously called me a Liar.

You ARE a liar. You said you answered my questions, when you didn't.

That's a bald-faced lie. No two ways around that.

And you're lying AGAIN in this very post:

You either did not find or did not like my answers.

Saying that you provided "answers." You didn't. I re-posted every single one of your posts. There were no answers.

You are lying.

And you say:

1. You routinely misconstrue Facts for Insults.

No, you routinely spew insults. Why, here's one right in this post:

You low brow excuse for an Esquire

Plus:

in your enormous ignorance and in dim-witted fashion

:2wave:

2. More people heard Heather's speech as a result of the protests, bringing important topics to the forefront for discussion. Refer to post #18. 3.

Yes. My question was, you actually think intimidation, thuggery, and trying to prevent people hearing a speech, as well as trying to prevent it from taking place, are good for free speech? You didn't answer, but that sure seems to be your (insane) argument here.

You have given me absolutely no motivation whatsoever to explain to YOU how to protect Heather.

Wait -- you said you answered that question. Here you're saying you have "no motivation whatsoever" to answer that question.

Lies upon lies upon lies.

Stop trolling me. Maybe you can find a Support Group in the Real World.

I'm not trolling; I'm debating, something you apparently have zero interest in doing.

Kal'Stang · Apr 12, 2017

Trippy Trekker said:
Please update me with any details you have regarding protesters arrested as a result of their activities. Heather made her Speech. Heather knew in advance to anticipate protesters resistant to her message. If someone interrupts me while I talk, have I suffered from lack of Free Speech Fully? I don't expect that slippery concept to gain much traction within the judicial system.
More people listened to Heather's speech as a result of the protests. Heather appeared to enjoy her TV interview. You may choose to paint a negative picture. I choose to paint a positive picture.

How many of the rioters in Ferguson were arrested for burning and looting businesses? Point being that just because people were not arrested does not mean that laws were not broken.

And just because Mrs. McDonald exercised some of her free speech, does not mean that her free speech was not suppressed. Tell me, if someone gives an hour long speech and intends to give a 2 hour long speech and then cops come along and stop it does that mean that the person exercised their full free speech rights? Or were their free speech rights suppressed? Should be a simple answer for most people.

And again, listening to a recording or an interview after the fact does not negate that her free speech was suppressed at that event. All that you're doing with that line of argument is to attempt to spin away from the fact that her free speech was suppressed at that event. Also called a deflection.

Trippy Trekker · Apr 12, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
How many of the rioters in Ferguson were arrested for burning and looting businesses? Point being that just because people were not arrested does not mean that laws were not broken.

And just because Mrs. McDonald exercised some of her free speech, does not mean that her free speech was not suppressed. Tell me, if someone gives an hour long speech and intends to give a 2 hour long speech and then cops come along and stop it does that mean that the person exercised their full free speech rights? Or were their free speech rights suppressed? Should be a simple answer for most people.

And again, listening to a recording or an interview after the fact does not negate that her free speech was suppressed at that event. All that you're doing with that line of argument is to attempt to spin away from the fact that her free speech was suppressed at that event. Also called a deflection.

I have no idea about the number of arrests made in Ferguson. I assume more than several. I don't believe a single protester faced arrest at Claremont McKenna. Laws generally serve the purpose to maintain order. Breaking Laws comes with risk. Society has LE and a judicial system to address law breakers and disagreements.

I have had my Free Speech interrupted more times than I can remember.... and have never felt so aggrieved to pursue a lawsuit over my perceived infringement. Ms. MacDonald has standing and can avail herself of our judiciary system if she wants to.

So, yes Ms. MacDonald, much like me, has had her Free Speech infringed. Now, Ms. MacDonald, like me, can decide whether to pursue legal action. With you in her corner, don't you think she would stand a better chance of winning?

Fishking · Apr 12, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
That's not how the 1st amendment works, your fellow citizens have every right to protest you. Considering she's on live national TV I don't know how you can possibly pretend she's being silenced. Frankly, someone categorically stupid enough to go around announcing that there is no racial bias in our justice system isn't to be taken seriously in the first place.

When the freedom of one set of private citizens are infringed on, and the police and the system sits by and allows it, then it's now become a violation of freedom of speech. At that point it has become an activity that has been condoned by the state. Before that, it's harassment and in many cases assault. Your rights do not include being allowed to violate the rights of others.

Harshaw · Apr 12, 2017

Anyway, to revisit THIS, because you edited it in after I began responding to the original post . . .

Mr Person said:
" are you really going to argue that only the government can violate someone's rights? If so, I have a zillion other questions for you."

Are you really going to lie about what I said? That's what you have to do to deflect?

Sorry I wasted my time.

I'm not lying at all about what you said.

Here's what you said:

The entire point of using the words "free" or "freedom of" in reference to "speech" is to invoke the constitutional protection. Because (1) as I said, ****ing duh, (2) there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government.

So, according to you, only the government can violate your "right to free(dom of) speech," but I'm lying by asking you if you're really arguing that the only the government can violate someone's rights?

In any case, you're wrong, as I've pointed out multiple times -- there are numerous senses which you can use the words "free speech," and reference the concept of "free speech," without "invoking the constitutional protection." Grim did so in the OP. Several other people in this thread have done the same, and have no problem seeing the larger picture that for some reason, even though you should be able to, you can't.

Master PO · Apr 13, 2017

Harshaw said:
Anyway, to revisit THIS, because you edited it in after I began responding to the original post . . .

I'm not lying at all about what you said.

Here's what you said:

So, according to you, only the government can violate your "right to free(dom of) speech," but I'm lying by asking you if you're really arguing that the only the government can violate someone's rights?

In any case, you're wrong, as I've pointed out multiple times -- there are numerous senses which you can use the words "free speech," and reference the concept of "free speech," without "invoking the constitutional protection." Grim did so in the OP. Several other people in this thread have done the same, and have no problem seeing the larger picture that for some reason, even though you should be able to, you can't.

who said this?

"there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government"

Harshaw · Apr 13, 2017

Master PO said:
who said this?

"there is no sense in which there is a right to free(dom of) speech as against any entity other than the government"

Mr. Person.

At Claremont McKenna, the left again shuts down free speech.

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Trippy Trekker

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

holbritter

apdst

apdst

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

eohrnberger

Kal'Stang

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Trippy Trekker

Trippy Trekker

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Kal'Stang

Trippy Trekker

Fishking

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot