Let’s talk censorship

As many of you out there in the cyberworld know, there’s quite a controversy going on involving PayPal. It’s not necessarily new, but the gist of it is that book vendors such as Smashwords, AllRomanceEbooks and Bookstrand must, according to PayPal, remove titles involving bestiality, rape and incest or PayPal will shut down those vendors’ accounts.

I feel I should make some disclosures: 1. I write romantic books with sex scenes that are available on some of these sites, like Smashwords, so I have an interest in what’s going on here. 2. I do not have a PayPal account; my husband does, but I do not have a personal account. 3. I dislike censorship as much as the next person. 4. I disagree with what PayPal is doing. 5. What PayPal is doing is not censorship.

That last one is probably going to put me on the wrong side of this for a lot of people, but it’s true.

Here are some things to check out:

I’m sure you’ll also easily find other threads, forums, etc., that talk about this.

One problem in this debate is the word “censorship.” Is what PayPal is doing censorship? Some will say no, some will say yes, and the answer, as Ben Kenobi might say, depends on one’s point of view. I say no. PayPal is conducting its business and implementing a rule; if you want to continue having an account with and using PayPal, you will have to follow those rules. You may not like those rules, but it’s up to you whether you will follow them or not. If you disagree with the rules, then you will have to find another payment processor.

Many people have said, in threads and such, that PayPal cannot tell them how to spend their money, and PayPal cannot tell them what to read. To the first, I’d say if you have a PayPal account, then to an extent they can tell you how to spend your money — you can use PayPal to spend your money according to certain rules. To the second, PayPal is not telling them what they can or cannot read. They are simply saying that you cannot use PayPal to acquire certain items, in this case, certain types of erotic stories. Don’t like it? Find — or create — another way to acquire them.

Another cry that has gone up is “freedom of expression!” Well yes, in the U.S. we all have that, it’s the First Amendment to the Constitution.

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

Notice that you have the right to speech and expression — there is no guarantee that you will have a platform to spread these views. The government won’t stop you from writing, or expressing, and that’s fantastic. But no one private agency or person is obligated to help you sell or otherwise disseminate your speech or expression. If an author submits a work to a publisher and they reject it, that is not censorship, it the publisher making a decision on what they think will sell, or what is a good book.

Amazon does not have to sell anything it doesn’t want to, for whatever reason. As big as Amazon is, it is not the only retailer in the world, or on the internet.

Much of the problem with the specific conflict of PayPal and Smashwords, it seems to me, is that as Coker says in his press release,

“PayPal is designed into the wiring of the Smashwords platform.  They run the credit card processing for our retail store, and they’re how we pay our authors and publishers.  PayPal is also an extremely popular, trusted payment option for our customers.  It is not feasible for us to simply switch to another provider, should such a suitable provider even exist, especially with so few days notice.”

Smashwords is so fundamentally entwined with PayPal that Coker feels the only feasible decision is to go along with PayPal’s demands. One lesson here might be to keep one’s options open, but these are still fairly early net days for e-commerce, and I think these things will change as time goes on, lessons are learned, and more options open up. Still, this is not censorship — Smashwords entered a business partnership with PayPal, and sometimes those don’t work the way you want them to. This is unfortunate, don’t get me wrong. I wish Smashwords had other options, and I wish PayPal wasn’t doing this in the first place. But the fact remains that Smashwords is not the only place to acquire the forbidden-by-PayPal works. It may take more work on the part of those buyers to find them, but it is not illegal and it is not censorship.

In the TeleRead blog, Chris Meadows writes: “who the hell is PayPal to appoint itself the arbiter over what is and is not acceptable to publish?” PayPal is not doing that. PayPal is saying, we do not want our service used to purchase X, Y and Z. PayPal is within its rights to do that, even if we don’t like it. Rules do not equal censorship.

To get back to expression, just as you have the right to expression, PayPal has the right to it as well, even if in the negative sense. Mark Coppack of The TechChat.com left this comment at the-digital-reader blog post above:

PayPal and any private company has the same 1st Amendment rights as the rest of us, and freedom of expression means the right to both say what one wants and NOT say what one doesn’t want. So, if PayPal decides not to engage in transactions around content that they find objectionable, it’s very much within their rights.

Bullying is, perhaps, a better description of what’s going on, but I’m not sure even that applies. PayPal said, we want to conduct our business according to these rules. Smashwords said, albeit reluctantly, okay. If Smashwords had alternative payment method, then they could continue to publish and sell those works. PayPal is saying, we do not want our business used for this. They are allowed to do that. Smashwords does have the option, difficult though it may be to implement, to find another payment processor.

We are guaranteed freedom of speech — we are not guaranteed that anyone will listen; that anyone will disseminate the speech; or that it will be easy to get the word out.


27 responses to this post.

  1. To quote Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.”

    Just because Paypal may have the legal right to censor, does make it any less censorship.


    • PayPal is not a government, nor a media outlet, nor a controlling body. They are a business that facilitates payments. If they want to limit the types of things their service can be used for, it is their right. It is not censorship.


      • Papal in this situation could arguably be called a controlling body and Smashwords a media outlet.

        As I said, just because the corporation has the legal right to censor, does not mean it is not censorship.

      • Posted by David Tower on February 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm

        There are other services that people/organizations can use. PayPay is not the only on-line bank out there, it’s just the biggest and easiest to use.

        My full soapbox is below.

    • PayPal is not a controlling body. It is a business that offers a service and they can make the rules about how that service is used. Smashwords is a media outlet in as much as they sell content, but they do not create it. If Smashwords didn’t exist to sell the books, would that be censorship? Coker says from the start they decided not to carry books dealing with underage sex — is that censorship? No, it’s the rule that he decided his company would follow and if you wanted to sell on Smashwords, you had to abide by that rule.


  2. Posted by Vivian Vincent on February 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    I agree. While it does suck what PayPal is doing, it’s NOT censorship. Although the line is clearly drawn and there are people on both sides shouting their opinions. I’m on the side of PennLady.


  3. Posted by David Tower on February 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    …and I agree with you. Business is business.

    I want to add to what Eve said.

    I think what is hard for so many is that politics entered this particular business: banking. When it comes to banking, however, the rule of “I couldn’t care less about where your money comes from” probably when out the window in the ’70s (though some might say earlier with the busting of Capone) because the Feds got new laws and regulations to allow them to get more involved to find the money of people who are truly despicable.

    Like murderers.

    What offends so many about the practices of PayPal is that they have taken a moral stance on who can use their services. This primarily concerns the distribution and publication of adult material. Make no doubt, when you put something on the internet, you are publishing it. This makes things hard for people like me who work with adult entertainers (my “day” job) and publish adult materials because we don’t have the option of the “ease of use” that PayPal provides. We end up getting charged alot more because other banking services charge *us* a premium but that’s the business side of it.

    PayPal has the same First Amendment rights as the rest of us but instead of exercising that right by saying “I don’t like that!” they have chosen to do so by adopting a business practice that is exclusionary and discriminatory.

    Sexuality, the discussion of, viewing of, reading about, participating in, purchasing the various accoutrements for, having differing relationships from “the norm” or dealing with the “consequences” of, are sensitive, difficult and tricky.

    PayPal taking a public stance on sexuality, which puts those of us who are… let’s say “liberal” about sexuality, on an uneven footing from someone who writes… oh, let’s say vampire abstinence romance novels.

    Anytime a major influential organization makes a moral judgement about you or me, be it the world’s largest on-line bank or… let’s say a major news organization, it’s disheartening and frightening. You feel trapped, hurt and scared because they have power over you. You become afraid of the history of discrimination, no matter how much that discrimination is protected. You don’t like it.

    I don’t like it.

    I’m sure Eve doesn’t like it.

    For my own part, I live by what my grandmother always told me. She’d rather her grandchildren watch sex on television than murder.

    And what PayPal has done over the years is make me feel like a murderer.


    • Posted by David Tower on February 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm

      Getting OFF the soapbox, thank you Eve. I’m a history, politics & news junkie at heart and by training. This was a tough write but it had to be said. 🙂


  4. Posted by Monocle on February 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Paypal is practicing a corporate censorship that is fully within their rights as a private entity to do, but it is absolutely censorship. They are singling out and suppressing from their system media based on content they deem unacceptable.

    Further, until other e-commerce groups out there with more liberated policies enter the scene, and grow to competitive size, they will be able to dictate what gets sold in these markets.

    It’s certainly legal. I’d question the consistency of its purported morality. I don’t see them prohibiting the sale of gory horror books, or thrillers which describe graphic serial murderers, or war stories that describe physical and mental torture in detail, or even bank heist stories that portray in meticulous detail the violation of multiple laws – and sometimes make us root for the perpetrators. Picking one subgenre of fiction, and labeling it unacceptable simply because it involves sex is hypocrisy at its finest. Again, perfectly legal on PayPal’s part. But I don’t think it’s something to shrug our shoulders at, because there’s there’s no check and balance on this boardroom morality. Until an alternative comes out that actually respects the freedom to write fiction – ALL fiction – every one of us is in the financial crosshairs.


    • Posted by Monocle on February 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      I should add that PayPal’s latest move has additional repercussions – the publisher we share, Republica Press, may not survive the quarter due to these actions. Your books may well find another home. Mine… maybe. But what a loss for all of us it would be.


      • This is true, and it’s a shame. I don’t know RP’s stats, so I don’t know how much of a loss it is for them if they have to remove your works, which I hope they don’t. Still, PayPal is a business. When you enter into a partnership with them, you agree to abide by their rules. When that conflicts, you can either abide by the new rules, as Smashwords is doing, or not. I’m sorry, it’s still not censorship. it’s a pain in the ass, and an inconvenience and all those other things but it isn’t censorship.

  5. Posted by Monocle on February 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Censorship is “the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts”, which is exactly what PayPal is doing by refusing commerce for certain media based on contents. It is specific, corporate censorship – you may not use PayPal’s systen to engage in commerce dealing with those materials. It is a censorship they are legally entitled to as a private company. It is a censorship that wouldn’t matter to anyone if there was a viable PayPal alternative that did not have their content restrictions. It is still undeniably censorship, and it may result in the shutting down of small businesses that can’t respond nimbly enough.


    • Corporate censorship may be the term we should use, then. “Censorship” is a word that can be tossed around to the point of weakening the meaning. I censor what my kids watch on TV, for example — but I can do that, and it’s not a “bad” use. All I can say is that PayPal is within their rights, even though it affects a lot of people. For all of our right to free expression, PayPal has it as well, and they are not obligated to help you sell your stuff, or me sell mine. Yes, they are the big fish, but there are and will be others. Unfortunately, starting a business does not guarantee you succeed in it.


  6. People are talking about semantics here. In the US there are words that can’t be said on broadcast television as per FCC rules, but stations have their own departments that determine standards in order to avoid government censorship and fines. So they “self-censor”. Dictionary definitions don’t include the word “by government” when talking about censorship. Certainly, a private company has the right to determine its own standards and prohibit material it considers offensive or just plan doesn’t want to publish. I’m not sure why the word “censorship” wouldn’t apply if they decide to ban certain voices or types of books. It would still be their right. (If someone has a definition of censorship that proves me wrong, please provide it.) Where things get murky is when people start shouting about “freedom of speech” and that their rights are somehow being violated by a private company. Smashwords can decide to publish whomever and whatever it wants. Whether you call it “censorship” or “violation of standards” isn’t really relevant. They are well within their rights as a private company.

    It sounds like Coker had his back against the wall. Clearly, what he needs to do now is figure out some alternative to using Paypal. Alternatives exist. He can then decide for himself what he does or doesn’t want to publish on his digital platform and make those guidelines clear to authors.

    I’m not going to go the outraged route and boycott Smashwords or take my books down. However, if Paypal extended its demands to include banning books based on their having offending content rather than their having offending content AND being listed as erotica, it is entirely possible that my novel, which is not listed as erotica and doesn’t have any of the offending “tag words” could be found to be in violation because of its content as would Lolita, Last Exit to Brooklyn, The Lovely Bones, Bastard Out of Carolina, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and basically a large percentage of novels now at your local library or brick and mortar bookstore.


    • Marion, I don’t believe Smashwords is a publisher per se. I was looking at their site, and you can publish your own book and sell it via their site, but I don’t think that’s the same thing. So Smashwords isn’t generating content.

      I still think “censorship” is a problem in this discussion because there are so many levels of it. I censor what my kids watch. Walmart censors its stock by, for example, not carrying “explicit” versions of CDs. But PayPal is not saying what can or cannot be published, it is saying that its service cannot be used in certain transactions. This poses a problem that amounts, to some, to censorship, but it is a business issue. Not a great one, and I disagree with it, but it’s not in my hands. I would agree you can term this “corporate censorship,” but if we are allowed to express ourselves by writing stories, PayPal is allowed to express itself by declining to be involved, right?

      I agree that Coker had little choice; from what I’ve read, it was go along or shut down and I can’t blame him at all for going along. What I’d really like is a statement from PayPal about this. I know what was in Smashword’s email, but I still wish PayPal had a press release or something about this. Anyone seen one?

      I think PayPal, or any company, can only go so far with this, and they wouldn’t want to go too far. If they banned too many things, people would stop using them because, in part, there’d be little to buy (I think; my logic gets fuzzy on Sunday nights).


      • There is debate about whether or not Smashwords is a publisher or a seller/distributor. If writers are self-publishing and haven’t signed on to Smashwords as a publisher than Smashwords is listed as their publisher in the editions it distributes. But that’s not really relevant. Whatever Smashwords is, it’s a business and is entitled to set it’s own terms of service. People aren’t free to put whatever content they want on Smashwords. Smashwords can set its own rules. If Smashwords went too far, someone else would come along and offer different rules. The problem is that PayPal holds the pursestrings and is close to being a monopoly. People have no where else to go. There’s a lot that you buy that comes through Paypal. In fact, you don’t even know how many businesses that you use ALL the time are dependent on them. If PayPal decides to become the morality police than companies (not consumers) would have to find a different way of transacting business.

      • If Smashwords can set terms, why can’t PayPal? And yes, there are other places to go — for example, people could send a check and when it clears, the electronic file (or print book) could be sent to them. This is big and clunky but it worked for years and years before the internet.

        If Smashwords put all their eggs in the PayPal basket, well, then that sucks for them when PayPal makes these rules. But I will state again — PayPal is not saying that these books cannot be written, or published, or bought or sold. PayPal does not want to be involved in selling or buying these books. That is their choice as a business.

        I will also add that yes, you and I have freedom of speech and expression. But no one is obligated to help us, and we don’t have the “right” to sell it. We can try. And if people don’t like what PayPal is doing, then let them use their right to free speech and expression and protest, sign petitions and take their business elsewhere.

        I’m not saying it’s easy, but I will say that you can make purchases without PayPal. I’m in something of a minority, I guess, but my buying habits have not made having PayPal a necessity. I don’t have an account with them and at the moment see no reason to get one. I manage fine.

  7. Posted by Amanda on February 27, 2012 at 1:15 am

    Once again we are brought to the crossroads. When can you say one person or entity’s rights end and another’s begin?


    • But I’m not sure this is about rights. When you make an account with PayPal, you agree to abide by the rules. PayPal is saying you cannot use their service in a certain way. They are not saying that these stories cannot be written, published, bought or sold. They just don’t want to be part of that process. You can put your money elsewhere, and acquire these stories elsewhere.


      • Posted by Amanda on February 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        I completely agree with you. PayPal has every right to run their business as they see fit. Maybe this is the opportunity for someone else to come in to work with those who want to sell things that PayPal does not want to be associated. This may also be a lesson learned for companies not to become so intimately I twined with another that it is detrimental if anything should change. Flexibility may just be the key to longevity.

  8. Posted by Lady Falcon on February 27, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    This has been an interesting debate. I don’t have a particular side as I don’t use Pay-Pal and I have never been to Smashwords. I shop on-line frequently and have never had a problem not having a Pay-pal account. My husband uses “Bill Me Later”. I simply use a pre-paid credit card through my bank that I load specifically for on-line shopping. I don’t use it for anything else. It seems to be the simplest way for me to buy what I want, when I want.

    As for a company relying solely on Pay-Pal to process payments from customers and to vendors…it’s not a crazy idea. Most companies for years have used the bank they hold their business accounts at to do the same. As far as I know (and I work in the banking industry albeit rather low on the totem pole) no bank has ever put restrictions on what a customer can purchase or what they can sell.

    So, as far as I can tell, Pay-Pal is setting a precedent. Is it a good precedent? That is a tough one for me to answer on a personal level. I don’t have a problem with someone or something changing their moral standards or personally opinions. I have certainly done it as I grew older and as different things became more or less important to me; as my experiences broadened my view of life and civilization. The main question seems to be does a privately owned company have the right to set moral rules? The answer is yes. They have that right because that company is based in a country and doing business in a country that has given it those rights. And I DO NOT under any circumstances want the government to start taking those rights away.

    Here is an example…Several businesses in my small town choose to not open on Sunday for moral reasons. The owners of these companies are Christians and are honoring Sunday as a day of rest. Just because I want to go purchase a plate of baked spaghetti from my favorite local restaurant does not mean I have the right to bang on the door of the owner’s house (yes, I know where he lives) and make him open up for me so I can fulfill my craving. Even better, about 6 months ago he put up a sign saying that he would no longer accept checks for payment of the food he cooks and serves. Did he get a slew of protesters outside his door? No, people just adjusted to the new rule and came in with cash or used a little plastic card. Where there is a will, there is a way. It’s the primary tenant behind innovation.

    I don’t think its censorship in the strictest sense of the word although, corporate censorship might be a reasonable clarification. Pay-Pal is being discriminatory and as a privately owned business they have that right and ability. Just as Smashwords has the right and ability (no matter how difficult it will be and how much time it will take) to find alternate means of banking. Maybe, they need to look at using a brick and mortar bank. It would certainly be good for my job security. 🙂

    As to the content that is being discriminated against…was there this much debate when Literotica took the “other” category off their site? I don’t remember? I just know one day it was gone.


  9. It doesn’t matter if it’s censorship according to the classic definition of censorship.
    Or if the classic construction of freedom of speech applies.

    That’s not the point.

    The point is that if, as Smashwords claim, it’s not even PayPal but the “credit unions” and the “credit card companies” that are behind the demanded restrictions, the effects might be the same, or worse, than censorship by a government.

    Worse because we’re getting closer and closer to the situation that certain private companies have more power to restrict human rights on a global scale than any individual government.

    The definitions of censorship and freedom of speech you quote so smugly were developed because at that time governments were the only entities with the absolute power to suppress an individual in those respects completely and without recourse.

    Today a private company with a global de-facto monopoly can easily create a situation that has the same effects as censorship by the government in the 17th century.

    Is it censorship according to the classic definition of censorship? No.
    Can it have the same effect as classic censorship? Yes.
    Is it wrong? YES.

    THAT’s the point here.


  10. I write erotic fiction. My book, which features a sexual encounter with a classical mythological being (a satyr) is now being classified under bestiality and may likely be removed. Like thousands of other writers, I use Smashwords to distribute my self published work to sites like Kobo, Sony, BN and iBook Store. Normally it would be as simple as moving my work to another distribution chain but it’s become readily apparent that Paypal holds a near monopoly in financial services across the internet.

    When you are dealing with a company this large with so much influence that they can dictate what appears on shelves, some questions need to be asked: Who regulates this entity? Is this legal? Who can we go to? Currently in the United States, there are no laws governing fictional crimes. To the best of my knowledge this new policy would not only ban the Bible but also works by Anaïs Nin, Vladimir Nabokov, Henry Miller, Marquis de Sade and books like Caligula, The Sookie Stackhouse Novels (True Blood), The Story of O, Venus in Furs, Lolita, The Color Purple, classical myths…and more.

    It is easy to ignore the plight of what many deem “those dirty writers and pornographers” but where does the buck stop? What is next? Is it gay erotica? BDSM? Zombie books that feature undead rising from the grave? Murder novels? They have already shut down sites that sell products well outside these push button topics.

    To better illustrate what is happening let me call your attention to CD’s with “Explicit” stickers on them. As a consumer I can make a choice whether or not to consume this content. The explicit CD’s are on the shelf along with other mainstream music. Now imagine for one second if your credit card company has prevented the explicit music to even APPEAR on the shelf! Think about that for a moment.

    Smashwords has a very strick safe search in place by default that doesn’t even SHOW erotic titles. To deactivate it you have to go three clicks deep into the site and turn it off. Why was this not enough for Paypal?

    There is a reason why large corporations nearing monopoly status require Federal regulation. What if say Monsanto (who controls 70-80%) of the seed market suddenly decided only white people can get seeds? Or that only Christian farmers should have access to seeds? People would be outraged would they not? Can we really say it’s within their right to do this just because it is a private company? I say no.

    Why does a financial transaction corporation like Paypal dictate what we can and cannot read? I think people can make these choices for themselves. The bigger issue goes way beyond Paypal and Smashwords. Ultimately this ties into what kind of internet we desire and what kind of world we want to live in.


    • Narcisse, You’re asking good questions, I think, but not necessarily the right ones. I’m not sure I’m asking the right ones either. For example, you say “Why does a financial transaction corporation like Paypal dictate what we can and cannot read?” That is not what they are saying. They are saying that if you have a PayPal account, you cannot use it in certain ways. If you read my next post (https://evemcfadden.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/once-more-on-paypal-etc/), you will see that I link to PayPal’s terms of service, and that spells out the acceptable uses of the PayPal service. Not your money — the service.

      Part of the issue is that PayPal was Smashwords’ sole payment processor. As I understand it, if they had another, they could continue to stock the titles PayPal objects to, b/c there would be another way of paying for them. As for books by Nabokov, Nin, etc., well, they are not targeted. Some of them because they are not erotica (yes, I know, that has an iffy definition at best). Still, PayPal has the final say on how its service can be used, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to have a PayPal account. There are other options out there — yes, I realize they may not be the easiest to use, but they are there.

      You’re also confusing discrimination with censorship, and they are two different things.


  11. Two points: suppose PayPal had decided that any books referring to Nazi death camps and the murder of 11 million (including 6 million Jews) could not pass through their system, because they personally did not believe the events ever happened. Would that be acceptable business behaviour? Would their action receive the same sort of understanding above, and if not, why not?

    Businesses do not exist in a moral vacuum and, especially when they have become dominant, their decisions can have wide implications for society

    Second point: PayPal enforced their action by threatening to cancel service to sellers who MIGHT be breaching the rules. Effectively, if a PayPal search turned up a suspect book title, the whole of suspect site was threatened with excommunication. (No-one bothered checking what was in the books concerned, or if there were other books breaking the rules but hiding under harmless titles.)

    Previously the right to impose such wide-reaching and commercially damaging punishments was the preserve of sovereign governments. Times have now changed; Amazon has the equivalence of sovereignty in its own sphere – or is at least approaching that position. Its decisions affect all of us…


    • I don’t think you’re making an apt comparison with the Holocaust books. Actually, it would probably be *legal* business behavior; whether it’s acceptable on any kind of moral level is obviously debatable. Personally, if PayPal did something like that, I wouldn’t give them my business; however, I already don’t, so that’s a moot point for me there.

      As I said, though, PayPal has laid stuff out in their terms of service, which says that you cannot use PayPal to purchase certain types of sexual material. If you have a PayPal account, you have agreed to that. I think PayPal shouldn’t bother with such stuff, and if they are going to bother, should have been consistent from the start.

      This is not a punishment, this is PayPal enforcing terms of service.

      Amazon is also, albeit a huge business, a business. They can stock what they want, or not. it is not censorship when a publisher rejects your work, or a vendor refuses to stock it. In the US, you are guaranteed freedom speech and expression, but you are not guaranteed payment for said speech, or even that anyone will help you disseminate it. That is up to you.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: