Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

De-platforming fascists works

Options
1…1719212223

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    WengerOutIn wrote: »
    Don't worry Justin, people-kind will forgive you.
    It would actually be laughable but for the sheep that think he is actually a decent guy.

    He's so obviously a creep.

    But isn't it amazing how easy it is to fool most people? Just say the right things, be seen doing some feminist type things, and almost everyone will think that's who you are.


  • Options
    #543
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    He's so obviously a creep.

    But isn't it amazing how easy it is to fool most people? Just say the right things, be seen doing some feminist type things, and almost everyone will think that's who you are.

    TBF, he replaced a complete right wing scumbag, so anyone half decent was in with a shout. He mostly got votes under the 'Stop Harper' campaign.

    tab-na-degape26-003jpg.jpg


  • Options
    #544
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    OMM 0000 wrote: »

    In fact I'd even argue now it's fine, as long as the intention isn't to degrade black people. I'd have no problem with a black dude covering himself in white makeup and pretending he's some white nerd. That would be funny.

    Funny if trudeau said this he wouldn't be seen as much of a hypocrite. Instead he doubles down admitting it was racist and he should have known better. Expect nothing different from someone so devoid of character as that man.


  • Options
    #545
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Funny if trudeau said this he wouldn't be seen as much of a hypocrite. Instead he doubles down admitting it was racist and he should have known better. Expect nothing different from someone so devoid of character as that man.

    Japers, same comment two different threads? Treat yourself! ;)

    I wouldn't say calling himself a racist was doubling down. Coming out to the press in black face might :)


  • Options
    #546
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    But the trouble is who decides what the "bull**** ideas" are ?
    And what if dis honest people get into the position of deciding what ideas or speeches are unacceptable?

    I think your genuine in your desire to keep people safe but I just think this leads to stagnation of a societies ideas and thinking.

    But that’s exactly what I said in a previous post!
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.

    The people of Japan honestly thought they could win a war with the US, because when their generals said “we can run amok for 6 months”, they saw what they wanted to see. The generals obviously knew they couldn’t win from before the war.
    The people of Germany fell for the same sh!te, they really believed a German was worth more, and would do better, than an opposing soldier.
    In more recent years I’ve seen some bush!t being peddled about saying that the Chinese can’t innovate. Unfortunately by the time that’s proved wrong, it’ll be too late and they’ll already be at the leading edge of technology - the only thing holding back their innovation is their current government and education style, not their ethnicity.

    A lot of people in Ireland think that Ireland can survive and do well on its own. They’ll be sorely disappointed too if that ever happens - our choice is to either be an inclusive global hub at the forefront of technology, or else be isolationist and spend all our time getting pushed around by Russia, China, Britain, and whoever else feels like it, and wonder why the young Irish have to keep emigrating for jobs again to sweep the streets of New York.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.

    I pay close attention to free speech advocates, I consider it 'my thing'. I would suggest that no-free speech advocate is pushing for slander to be included under the rubric of free speech.

    Could you prove me otherwise?

    These are more things that DO NOT fall under the rubric of free speech:
    • Obscenity
    • Lying
    • Fighting words/Threats
    • Private enterprise/places of employment/school
    • Government employees

    Nobody wants these to included under the umbrella term freedom of speech except the people looking to limit other's freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #548
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    So when you say “slander”, I’m going to assume you mean “make false and damaging statements about”, which is the definition in English, rather than the legal term.

    A lot of people make statements like “the country can’t afford more economic migrants”, which is false, as it suggests most so called “economic migrants” don’t pay their own way - all evidence is to the contrary.

    Should such statements be allowed under free speech?

    Is that not a false and damaging (to migrants) statement about an economic migrant, in pretty much any country, and hence a slanderous statement?


  • Options
    #549
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,499 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    TBF, he replaced a complete right wing scumbag, so anyone half decent was in with a shout. He mostly got votes under the 'Stop Harper' campaign.

    tab-na-degape26-003jpg.jpg

    He is further to the right of Harper.

    Socially liberal, radical free market right on migration and economics but call it solidarity and the left love it. Say it's anti racism and neoliberalism is tolerated.


  • Options
    #550
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I pay close attention to free speech advocates, I consider it 'my thing'. I would suggest that no-free speech advocate is pushing for slander to be included under the rubric of free speech.

    Could you prove me otherwise?

    These are more things that DO NOT fall under the rubric of free speech:
    • Obscenity
    • Lying
    • Fighting words/Threats
    • Private enterprise/places of employment/school
    • Government employees

    Nobody wants these to included under the umbrella term freedom of speech except the people looking to limit other's freedom of speech.

    *Obscenity Ulysses, The Life of Brian, The Barracks
    *Lying Galileo's theories which contravened holy writ and that he recanted
    *Fighting words/Threats Socialist and anarchist organisations
    *school I'm sure I could find relevant censorship of academia to hammer my point further.


    As soon as you put up restrictions you have to run a gauntlet of interpretation, and the manner it may be used malevolently.


  • Options
    #551
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    *Obscenity Ulysses, The Life of Brian, The Barracks
    *Lying Galileo's theories which contravened holy writ and that he recanted
    *Fighting words/Threats Socialist and anarchist organisations
    *school I'm sure I could find relevant censorship of academia to hammer my point further.


    As soon as you put up restrictions you have to run a gauntlet of interpretation, and the manner it may be used malevolently.

    Good point.

    That's why I believe it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when prosecuting a crime like a hate crime. Too many of us these days form opinions too quickly in these respects IMO.

    For example, Marcus Meechan was told by his judge that context didn't matter. Surely that's all that matters.

    It's often difficult to differentiate between opinion and slander as you allude to, this is why when in doubt you must assume otherwise and give the benefit of doubt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    A lot of people make statements like “the country can’t afford more economic migrants”, which is false, as it suggests most so called “economic migrants” don’t pay their own way - all evidence is to the contrary.

    Should such statements be allowed under free speech?

    Is that not a false and damaging (to migrants) statement about an economic migrant, in pretty much any country, and hence a slanderous statement?

    Yes IMO they should be allowed. They could be interpreted by you or someone else as 'damaging'. But you must admit they also very well could be opinion.
    Even if something is completely obviously untrue, people should still be allowed to say it if it doesn't hurt someone else directly.

    I believe the charge of damaging should be one that is proved also beyond a shadow of a doubt what harm was caused and would it not have been caused if such thing wasn't said(for reasons cited previous post). I don't believe a statement like that causes harm to migrants.


    What I believe more important about the example you give is that the person who expresses such distasteful opinion should be allowed to be challenged and possibly change their mind. It also can allow others to sharpen their arguments. You could argue that someone might hear them and believe them, but I tend to believe most people have a strong faculty for these things when they are out in the open and people are free to talk about them honestly.

    If you can prove how the statement (bolded) can damage immigrants you could change my mind.


  • Options
    #553
    statesaver
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,084 ✭✭✭statesaver


    Has Trudeau the racist not fallin' on his sword and resigned yet ?

    Some people must be allowed to be racist, who knew


  • Options
    #554
    The_Brood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 838 ✭✭✭The_Brood


    statesaver wrote: »
    Has Trudeau the racist not fallin' on his sword and resigned yet ?

    Some people must be allowed to be racist, who knew


    Dy0aZNIVYAAjioP.jpg


  • Options
    #555
    PostWoke
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 559 ✭✭✭PostWoke


    Deflection and whataboutisms, is this all the extremist right is capable of? All this free rent 'lEfTiStS' get living in your head.

    Also Sarah Silverman ain't sh!t.


  • Options
    #556
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,311 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Good point.

    That's why I believe it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt when prosecuting a crime like a hate crime. Too many of us these days form opinions too quickly in these respects IMO.

    For example, Marcus Meechan was told by his judge that context didn't matter. Surely that's all that matters.

    It's often difficult to differentiate between opinion and slander as you allude to, this is why when in doubt you must assume otherwise and give the benefit of doubt.

    the standard of proof for all criminal offences is beyond a reasonable doubt.


  • Options
    #557
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the standard of proof for all criminal offences is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Just the way it should be, for fear of convicting innocent people.

    It seems though that hate laws might be challenging this long established norm:
    ‘Any incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by hate, based on a person’s age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation’ .

    It looks like hate crime advocates aren't willing to meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof.

    Just look at some threads on this boards such as "Homophobic Attack on London Bus"


  • Options
    #558
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    Yes IMO they should be allowed. They could be interpreted by you or someone else as 'damaging'. But you must admit they also very well could be opinion.
    Even if something is completely obviously untrue, people should still be allowed to say it if it doesn't hurt someone else directly.

    I believe the charge of damaging should be one that is proved also beyond a shadow of a doubt what harm was caused and would it not have been caused if such thing wasn't said(for reasons cited previous post). I don't believe a statement like that causes harm to migrants.


    What I believe more important about the example you give is that the person who expresses such distasteful opinion should be allowed to be challenged and possibly change their mind. It also can allow others to sharpen their arguments. You could argue that someone might hear them and believe them, but I tend to believe most people have a strong faculty for these things when they are out in the open and people are free to talk about them honestly.

    If you can prove how the statement (bolded) can damage immigrants you could change my mind.


    By statement (bolded) I'm assuming you mean the "false and damaging (to migrants)" bit - I'll explain what I meant.

    Due to the common misconception that immigrants "take our jobs" and "take our social welfare" (at the same time!), which exists in probably every country I can think of, most countries' laws and public attitude (including Irelands) towards immigrants is overwhelmingly negative. The term "immigrant" even has a negative connotation for this reason, whereas it should actually be a positive thing - this person wanted to better their personal circumstances through work, and was willing to move country to follow their goal, surely this person is going to be a net contributor to any society they move to.
    The net result is that this misinformation turns ordinary people into anti-immigrants, and a lot of "good" immigrants often leave the country due to people's behaviour towards them.

    I've been personal friends with at least 3 people who left Ireland after living here for 7 years in one case, due to how they perceived ordinary people's attitudes were towards them.

    They never came back, and every single one of them is on over 100k euros salary now - that means the Irish government lost approx 40k per year in taxes from each of them, and I lost a friend in each case.


  • Options
    #559
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    ...

    I would argue that these 'misconceptions' aren't as clear cut as you express.
    e.g.
    surely this person is going to be a net contributor to any society they move to.

    But even if they were, obvious untruths and clear cut lies then the only important thing left would be whether you can prove that person saying these lies did it with the intent to slander someone else.

    To deny the Holocaust is a crime in some countries in Europe. The holocaust is a very real event that obviously happened, but I see no utility in criminalizing people who express the view that it didn't happen. People could argue it causes harm, just like you have argued. I don't see this 'harm' as having met the threshold. I see far more harm in denying people the ability to tell an untruth, since who decides what is true and untrue?


  • Options
    #560
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    ...

    I don't see this 'harm' as having met the threshold ...


    Once again, the difference in our opinions comes down to the acceptable threshold.


    So let's stop calling it "free speech" vs "tyranny" as it's a huge exaggeration of the difference


  • Options
    #561
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Once again, the difference in our opinions comes down to the acceptable threshold.

    So let's stop calling it "free speech" vs "tyranny" as it's a huge exaggeration of the difference

    It might not currently be a tyrannical force opposing free speech, but once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed- that's what I'm trying to warn against.
    That's how tyrannical forces came into power all over the world! People wanted more protection more security less harm etc..

    If I tell you your favourite shop is open tomorrow, and it's not, and you go there tomorrow to visit and realize it wasn't open, and in your anger turn and slip and hurt your ankle, would it be my fault that you hurt your ankle? Did my speech cause your damage?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    Bit cynical
    Registered Users Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    yoke wrote: »
    But that’s exactly what I said in a previous post!
    “The problem with free speech is that it’s an illusion, and always has been. You can’t allow people to spread lies, but who decides what the lies are?”

    If you do allow people to spread lies, with the expectation that it’ll be self-policing, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
    History has shown time and time again that lies are not self-policing.
    The problem is who is the "you" in the above that allows or does not allow something to be said.

    In the examples you give below:
    The people of Japan honestly thought they could win a war with the US, because when their generals said “we can run amok for 6 months”, they saw what they wanted to see. The generals obviously knew they couldn’t win from before the war.
    The people of Germany fell for the same sh!te, they really believed a German was worth more, and would do better, than an opposing soldier.
    In more recent years I’ve seen some bush!t being peddled about saying that the Chinese can’t innovate. Unfortunately by the time that’s proved wrong, it’ll be too late and they’ll already be at the leading edge of technology - the only thing holding back their innovation is their current government and education style, not their ethnicity.
    It needs to be noted that Japan and Germany during the ware were not free speech countries. In these countries, no doubt the people supporting Nazi and Japanese imperialist values considered themselves supporters of the truth and used the very same arguments you are using to suppress those who disagreed with them.


  • Options
    #563
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    It might not currently be a tyrannical force opposing free speech, but once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed- that's what I'm trying to warn against.
    That's how tyrannical forces came into power all over the world! People wanted more protection more security less harm etc..

    If I tell you your favourite shop is open tomorrow, and it's not, and you go there tomorrow to visit and realize it wasn't open, and in your anger turn and slip and hurt your ankle, would it be my fault that you hurt your ankle? Did my speech cause your damage?


    Right, I'm agreeing with you here - once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed.



    We differ on the way to prevent tyrannical forces from coming into power though. "Tyrannical forces" don't suddenly appear out of nowhere, they grow slowly and surely out of groups of people who tell lies to each other to make themselves feel better about their situation - whether it was that "we're germans, we're not ****, we're worth something! the jews made us lose ww1" leading to ww2, or "we're japanese, we can do anything! we're better than everyone!" leading to the same.


    Not allowing the spread of obvious lies and obvious junk science should be a good first step towards preventing tyrannical forces from growing to begin with.

    Hence, de-platforming people like Milo Yiannopoulos is actually a positive step


  • Options
    #564
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Bit cynical wrote: »
    The problem is who is the "you" in the above that allows or does not allow something to be said.

    In the examples you give below:It needs to be noted that Japan and Germany during the ware were not free speech countries. In these countries, no doubt the people supporting Nazi and Japanese imperialist values considered themselves supporters of the truth and used the very same arguments you are using to suppress those who disagreed with them.


    Germany was a free speech country and a democracy before the nazi's gained power. The nazi party was democratically elected in a free society, where even jews and ethnic minorities were allowed to vote.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth refers to antisemitism in germany growing based on the false allegation that wartime Germany (in WW1) had been betrayed by an enemy within - it surged again after the economic crash in 1929 as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "a virulent strain". If enough german people had defended the truth at the time, that german jews werent much different to ordinary germans, and stopped the nazis from spreading their sh!te, perhaps the nazis never would have got power.


  • Options
    #565
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    Right, I'm agreeing with you here - once a tyrannical force does take the reigns of power we're all ****ed.

    I didn't define myself properly. I meant to say once a tyrannical force takes power, and has the power of hate speech laws, we're all toast.

    Consider these two environments, which one is a tyrannical force more likely to propagate within:
    • One where they have hate speech laws which the tyrannical force can interpret to suit them.
    • One where freedom of expression is a right which can not be suppressed.(independent courts and constitution etc..)

    We may stop tyrannical forces using the method you mention(preventing people from talking about things), but you also throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I believe de-platforming people like Milo only leads to bitterness between his supporters and others. Why not have him out in the open where we can mock him(where he will most likely fade to obscurity).

    De-platforming them also martyrs them. Which is the opposite of what you originally sought to accomplish. Akin to the Streisand Effect.


  • Options
    #566
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    I didn't define myself properly. I meant to say once a tyrannical force takes power, and has the power of hate speech laws, we're all toast.

    Consider these two environments, which one is a tyrannical force more likely to propagate within:
    • One where they have hate speech laws which the tyrannical force can interpret to suit them.
    • One where freedom of expression is a right which can not be suppressed.(independent courts and constitution etc..)

    We may stop tyrannical forces using the method you mention(preventing people from talking about things), but you also throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I believe de-platforming people like Milo only leads to bitterness between his supporters and others. Why not have him out in the open where we can mock him(where he will most likely fade to obscurity).

    De-platforming them also martyrs them. Which is the opposite of what you originally sought to accomplish. Akin to the Streisand Effect.




    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.


  • Options
    #567
    Woodsie1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 949 ✭✭✭Woodsie1


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.

    Right is bad...left is good...
    Jesus thats some dumb sh1t.


  • Options
    #568
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?

    That's the thing.. its not so easy just to make your own laws like that. It's far easier to have existing laws in place to abuse. Do you admit these laws can be abused? I'm sure a lot of people would be happy calling Trump a tyrant, imagine if he got his pre-election wish to silence those he disagreed with?

    Imagine he had hate laws that he could interpret for his own purpose. I'm sure the U.S. won't succumb to tyranny precisely because of their independent justice system and constitution.

    I see good intentions behind the people advocating hate laws, but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

    When thinking of hate laws you must consider; how could my worst enemy interpret this?

    This hypocrisy from the allies during the Nuremberg trials was quite telling. A lot of the crimes they prosecuted the Nazis for they were guilty of themselves.
    "Making Justice at Nuremberg, 1945 - 1946"
    By Professor Richard Overy
    Most difficult of all, the western states had to accept Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new legal instruments[hate crimes].

    The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused.


  • Options
    #569
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Woodsie1 wrote: »
    Right is bad...left is good...
    Jesus thats some dumb sh1t.

    Right and left? You’re the only one mentioning those words.. did you even read the discussion?

    What a fvcking moronic post


  • Options
    #570
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,516 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    yoke wrote: »
    When a tyrannical force takes power, they can make their own hate speech laws. They won't need to hide behind ours. Are we a tyrannical force?


    History has shown that trying to leave a$$holes like Milo alone doesn't work. In germany shortly before the nazis, the government allowed right wing groups to grow, despite the huge amount of lies they were spreading (they even accused the government of being run by jews), with the exact same hope - that 'normal' people would see through the lies. They didnt.

    Comparing modern western society with the socio economic disaster zone that was post World War One Germany isn't reasonable. Nor is comparing Milo with the Nazi's.
    The normal German people of that era were in a situation that lent itself to being taken advantage of by a group like the Nazis in a way which just doesn't exist in the west in modern times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    yoke
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭yoke


    Veritas Libertas wrote: »
    That's the thing.. its not so easy just to make your own laws like that. It's far easier to have existing laws in place to abuse. Do you admit these laws can be abused?

    Of course they can be abused - any law can be abused. I’ve been painting immigrants in a good light in my above posts, but I’m also aware of the “bad” immigrants who very often leave the country without paying their last electricity bill and/or racking up a nice credit card debt before they leave. It’s basically abusing the fact that they’re allowed to leave a country while still having a debt in that country, ie. abusing our freedom laws. Does that mean we should remove that freedom, ie. People with debt can’t leave the country?
    I see good intentions behind the people advocating hate laws, but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

    When thinking of hate laws you must consider; how could my worst enemy interpret this?

    It’s always going to be a balance between how often the law can be abused, and how often it can be applied to good effect. That’s the same with any law, whether it’s about “standing your ground when a burglar enters your home” or about “spreading hatred”, any law is going to have a potential for abuse. The job of the lawmakers is to make the law in such a way as to minimize potential for abuse, and they can adjust the laws if they are seen to be being abused a lot.
    <...>
    The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused.

    Not arguing with you here, rape was a huge problem perpetrated by some of the victors, and not prosecuted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Soviet_occupation_of_Poland


Advertisement