Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 2. Discuss the legal definitions of obscenity and indecency. Consider how contemporary/local community standards are ascertained.

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Broadcasting, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Policies, Radio | Tags: , , , , |

The definition of obscenity that currently applies to broadcasting was set forth in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California.

For a radio or television broadcast to be considered obscene, it must meet a three-part test:

  1. Contain material that depicts of describes in patently offensive way certain sexual acts as defined in state law;
  2. Appeal to the prurient interests of the average person applying contemporary local community standards, where prurient means tending to excite lust;
  3. Lack of serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

Indecency is content that is not obscene as set forth in the Miller v. California Supreme Court decision but still contains offensive elements. The common legal definition of broadcast indecency is as follows:

“Something broadcast is indecent if it depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a fashion that’s patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for the broadcast media at a time of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”

Nudity and the use of words that describe sexual or excretionary acts are not obscene per se, however, they may be classified as indecent.

Contemporary community standards are ascertained or determined by jurors in obscenity and indecency cases prosecuted and brought before the courts.

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Perversion for Profit: Part IV

Community standards change overtime, by location and who makes up a jury in a specific case.

With the world-wide web or the internet linking people in many communities, what are contemporary community standards?

Today the prosecution of obscenity and indecency cases is considered normal.

Yet the ancient Greeks and Romans would consider the prosecution of obscenity and indecency as bizarre.

The determination of community standards appears to be both arbitrary, capricious and ever-changing.

Technology in the form of VCR, cable television and the internet have made eroded community standards and made the prosecution of obscenity cases difficult.

Jurors hearing an obscenity case will compare the evidence presented in court with what they have seen on cable television and over the internet or with videos that have watched in their homes.

The perverse unintended consequence is there are no contemporary community standards.

The Seven Words

Censored South Park F Word Scene

Background Articles and Videos

Should Obscenity be Illegal?: Lady Chatterley, Milk Nymphos, & John Stagliano

Censored! The First Amendment, Sex, and Obscenity

“How Obscene is This” Panel 2 | The New School

Obscenity and the Supreme Court

Perversion for Profit 1/2

Perversion for Profit 2/2

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Pt 1 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Pt 2 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Southpark Kyles mom a bitch with lyrics

I’m Gonna Kick His Ask

 

Obscenity

“…An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.

In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as “obscene profits”, “the obscenity of war”, etc. It is often replaced by the word salaciousness.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses.[1]

The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

Congress shall make no law (…) 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.

Thus, the United States of America has constitutional protection for freedom of speech, which is not interpreted to protect every utterance, despite the lack of exception clauses (rare in a national constitution) in the text of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word obscenity is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

The legal term of obscenity is usually denoted to classify a distinction between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access versus those that should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which usually includes “classic nude forms” such as Michelangelo’s David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as “protected forms of speech” versus “obscene acts”, which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time.

In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the “Miller test”, below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and community standards has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))

Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases. Title 18, chapter 71 of the USC deals with obscenity, the workings out of the law described in this article, most notably the aforementioned Miller test.

Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly “what is obscene”, famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…[b]ut I know it when I see it…”[2]

However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene—and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling:

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are ‘offensive’ to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed ‘to invite dispute,’ to induce ‘a condition of unrest,’ to ‘create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,’ and even to stir ‘people to anger.’ The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are ‘offensive’ to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard ‘offensive’ gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court’s opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be ‘offensive’ to some. [4]

In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of “obscenity” presently always refers to this “Miller test obscenity”. As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. “Obscene articles… are generally prohibited entry” to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[5]

At present, there are only two legally protected areas of explicit commercial pornography. The first is “mere nudity” as upheld in “Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)” whereby the film Carnal Knowledge was deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial “The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.” This was upheld time and again in later cases including “Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)” in which the city of Jacksonville stated that showing films containing nudity when the screen is visible from a public street or place is a punishable offense. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners. The second is single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as “soft-core” pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.

In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled “American Bukkake 13”, “Gag Factor 15”, “Gag Factor 18” and “Filthy Things 6”. The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 – “Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”) against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution, possibly fearing the formal establishment of films depicting ejaculation as a nationally protected material if the trial was decided in favor of JM Productions.[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether “sperm showing through ejaculation” is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”.[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution” for having shipped JM Productions’ film “Gag Factor 18”.[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being “obscene” has not been specifically stated at this point.

Obscenity v. indecency

Main article: Indecency

The differentiation between indecent and obscene material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a profane word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience.

Non image-based obscenity cases in the USA

While most of the obscenity cases in the United States have revolved around images and films, there have been many cases that dealt with textual works as well.

The classification of “obscene” and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with “Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)” which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the ‘Chicago Dispatch,’ containing “obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials”, which was later upheld in several cases. One of these was “A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)” wherein the book “Fanny Hill”, written by John Cleland c. 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put the book itself on trial rather than its publisher. Another was “Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)” whereby the court most famously determined that “Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content.”

However, the book was labeled “erotica” in the 1965 case (206 NE 2d 403) and there a division between erotica and obscenity was made—not all items with erotic content were automatically obscene. Further, the 1965 “John Cleland’s ‘Memoirs'” case added a further qualification for the proving of “obscenity” — the work in question had to inspire or exhibit “prurient” (that is, “shameful or morbid”) interest.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio (which was decided the same day) and overruled state court findings of obscenity against Henry Miler’s Tropic of Cancer. A copyright infringing “Medusa” edition of the novel was published in New York City in 1940 by Jacob Brussel; its title page claimed its place of publication to be Mexico. Brussel was eventually sent to jail for three years for the edition,[9] a copy of which is in the Library of Congress.

In September 2005 an FBI “Anti-Porn Squad” was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories.[10] Other websites such as BeautyBound.com have closed themselves down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.[citation needed]

Past standards

These standards were once used to determine exactly what was obscene. All have been invalidated, overturned, or superseded by the Miller Test.
  • Wepplo (1947): If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal. App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
  • Hicklin test (1868): the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 – overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would ‘corrupt the morals of youth’ in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
  • Roth Standard (1957): “Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest”. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) – overturned by Miller
  • Roth-Jacobellis (1964): “community standards” applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is “utterly without redeeming social importance”. Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) – famous quote: “I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] …But I know it when I see it”.
  • Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test (1966): Adds that the material possesses “not a modicum of social value”. (A Book Named John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.

Many historically important works have been described as obscene or prosecuted under obscenity laws, including the works of Charles Baudelaire, Lenny Bruce, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, and the Marquis de Sade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Decency

“…Decency is the measure of an object’s worth and value.[citation needed]

The category of issues that includes matters of “sex and decency in advertising” is a constant and ubiquitous problem concerning products, services, concepts, claims and imageries eliciting reactions of distaste, disgust, offense or outrage when mentioned or presented in advertisements.[1] Issues such as decency are more difficult to define and handle because they reflect a large variety of personally subjective, culturally related and historically changing values and attitudes.[1] The types of controls and their shortcomings present dangers for freedom of commercial communication.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency

Miller v. California

“…Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.

The appellant, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast’s largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, labeled “adult” material (also referred to in the vernacular as pornography). He was found guilty in the Superior Court of Orange County, California (the state trial court) of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. As stated in the preface to Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion, the

Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures and complained to the police.

According to the Court’s decision, the materials in question primarily… consist[ed] of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed. Since the Court’s decision in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Court had struggled to define what constituted constitutionally unprotected obscene material. Under the common law rule that prevailed before Roth, articulated most famously in the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin, any material that tended to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” was deemed “obscene” and could be banned on that basis. Thus, works by Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce, and D. H. Lawrence were banned based on isolated passages and the effect they might have on children. Roth repudiated the Hicklin test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material meeting this test could be banned as “obscene.”

Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, First Amendment “literalists,” chafed at the Roth test and argued vigorously that the First Amendment protected obscene material. In subsequent cases the Court encountered tremendous difficulty in applying the Roth test, which did not define what it meant by “community standards.” For example, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, involving whether Ohio could ban the showing of a French film called Les Amants (FRENCH FOR The Lovers), the Court ruled that the film was protected by the First Amendment, but could not agree as to a rationale, yielding four different opinions from the majority, with none garnering the support of more than two justices, as well as two dissenting opinions. In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), a plurality of the Court further redefined the Roth test by holding unprotected only that which is “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value,” but no opinion in that case could command a majority of the Court either, and the state of the law in the obscenity field remained confused.

Pornography and sexually oriented publications proliferated as a result of the Court’s holdings, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s flowered, and pressure increasingly came to the Court to allow leeway for state and local governments to crack down on obscenity. During his ill-fated bid to become Chief Justice, Justice Abe Fortas was attacked vigorously in Congress by conservatives such as Strom Thurmond for siding with the Warren Court majority in liberalizing protection for pornography. In his 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon campaigned against the Warren Court, pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court’s obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of “obscenity” which would allow local prosecutions, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who by now also believed the Roth and Memoirs tests should be abandoned, led the charge for protecting all “obscenity” unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults. Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing by a bare 5-4 vote.

The decision

The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that “obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment”, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.[1]

However, the Court acknowledged “the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” and said that “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.”[2] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

  1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
  3. “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[4]

This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]” and that obscenity was that which was “utterly without redeeming social importance.”[5]

The Miller decision vacated the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with the First Amendment standards established by the opinion.

Effects of the decision

Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of “obscene” material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of “obscenity.” Hundreds of “obscenity” prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state actions after years of reviewing many “obscenity” convictions (over 60 appeared on the Court’s docket for the 1971-72 term, pre-Miller). A companion case to Miller, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, provided states with greater leeway to shut down adult movie houses. Controversy arose over Miller’s “community standards” analysis, with critics charging that Miller encouraged “forum shopping” to prosecute national producers of what some believe to be “obscenity” in locales where community standards differ substantially from the rest of the nation. For example, under the “community standards” prong of the Miller test, what might be considered “obscene” in Massachusetts might not be considered “obscene” in Utah, or the opposite might be true; in any event, prosecutors tend to bring charges in locales where they believe that they will prevail.

The “community standards” portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be “obscene” can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about “obscenity” than other areas of the nation.

In the years since Miller, many localities have cracked down on adult theatres and bookstores, as well as nude dancing, through restrictive zoning ordinances and public nudity laws. These types of actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Additionally, in 1982’s New York v. Ferber, the Court declared child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York’s ban on that material. In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.

In American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, plaintiffs American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio’s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code §2907.01(E) and (J), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “materials harmful to juveniles,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute’s definition of “harmful to juveniles,” as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials. The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute’s definition of “material harmful to minors” did not comply with Miller. Defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Community Standards

“…Community standards are local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes these standards can be itemized in a list that states the community’s values and sets guidelines for participation in the community. Alternatively, informal standards may be imprecisely described as “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages.

Colleges and universities enforce their standards through conduct offices in their Student Affairs divisions. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards

Obscenity vs. Freedom of Expression: The John Stagliano Trial

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: