CCP folds to terrorism :(

09 August 2011

on teleradyo, karen davila and vic what’shisname are ignorance & arrogance personified.  speaking for an angry people daw, and telling us how to think and what to think.  hey you two, you’re back in the dark ages, along with the prez and some senators and congressmen, why am i not surprised, the bishops must oh so love you.  at the very least, please read this : rody alampay’s Democracy as Religion, and level up the thinking and talking naman!

Let us take it from the experience of Muslims. (Let us be honest to start, in other words: If there is any religion that truly reels from shallow and irresponsible discourse in the Western-media dominated modern world, it is Islam.) Just before 9/11, and even before some Danish cartoonist with balls started drawing Mohammed, Islamic nations led by Pakistan had begun calling annually for a non-binding UN resolution condemning “defamation of religion”. Every year from 2001 to 2010 the proposition received a majority vote from the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.

But every year, too, that majority vote had grown smaller and smaller, with previously fence-sitting members of the UNHRC one-by-one siding with the resolution’s steadfast critics: they who had warned that the broadly-worded resolution would likely be used by repressive governments to stifle any expression that can even remotely be tied to religious sensibilities. (The Catholic Church in the Philippines, for example, ties faith and decency to everything from the Reproductive Health debates to jueteng.)

The “religious defamation” lobby, in a strategic retreat, abandoned the annual campaign for a UN resolution against defamation of religion this year. Instead, it sought common ground with advocates for free expression, who were coming to every annual vote with an ever-growing list of reports and governments that had been proving their fears well-founded. The result: the UNHRC this year voted unanimously, no longer passing a resolution “combating defamation of religions”, but in its stead, one (with a deep breath) “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Two crucial shifts in the thinking. First, the focus goes from requiring governments to protect religion, to demanding that states protect individuals. Second, the emphasis is no longer on religion, but on tolerance.

The consensus no longer calls for restrictions on legitimate expression. Instead, it takes a more constructive and positive approach, emphasizing education, not prison and not violence, to weed out intolerance and bigotry (which, in any culture, is always seen as a symptom of maleducation, bad breeding, and an immature society.)

Tolerance will ultimately benefit all, the heretics as well as the faithful.

and to filipino artists out there.  i am dismayed that we are not united in protesting CCP’s surrender to CBCP’s censorship.  this is not about how worthy or unworthy mideo cruz’s art is.  this is about being forced to abide by values that blind and terrorize.  tinitimbang tayo nguni’t kulang :(

Let the artists be weird. They can only try to push the boundaries of thought and expression. That is why they are called the avant-garde. They are soldiers further in advance of the army itself, slashing and burning and clearing the path for whatever may follow. The boundaries must be expanded, but the artists themselves have no power to dictate where the rest of society will go.

For governments, on the other hand, as even the Organization of Islamic Conference effectively conceded, the reflex to empower itself, and to restrict rather than expand democratic space, is automatic. The notion that states can and should define and execute what is criminally insulting is an invitation to destroy all that a nation such as ours supposedly upholds: democracy as well as, ironically, faith itself.

Imelda Marcos, coming down on the side of the Inquirer, spoke of the Cultural Center of the Philippines as sanctuary for the Filipino soul. For all, she said more specifically, that is true, and good, and beautiful about this nation. She throws in the proposition that as a state institution, there is no place in the CCP for any thought that could insult any religion.

Actually, it is the other way around. As a state institution consecrated to the arts, the CCP should be agnostic to the notion of insult, and dogmatic to the possibility of expression, to the chance of happening upon art.

Art as Terrorism? Try Democracy as Religion. Where democracy is dogma, every expression is prayer, freedom is shared and miraculously multiplied to nourish the multitude – the idiots and even abusive among them. Abuse, of course, as in all religions, is a sin; but abuse of thought is also always indefinable, and so in the democratic theology, tolerance is the highest virtue. Democracy provides the only true environment where you can defend your faith, if you really have it, while also protecting the rights of others, if you really believe we all deserve it.

42 Responses to CCP folds to terrorism :(

  1. August 9, 2011 at 11:10 pm
    manuelbuencamino

    Is it okay to exhibit art that mocks/ridicules those with physical deformities or mental handicaps? How about art advocating violence against women, gays, cultural groups, races, etc? Just asking…

    • August 10, 2011 at 12:28 am

      in the context of tolerance, yes, it would be okay to exhibit art that mocks/ridicules the handicapped or that advocates violence against whomever. but such art tends to be rare. artists tend to focus on the powerful and bring them down from pedestals, not on women, gays, discriminated races and ethnic cultures, etc. who are already victims. which is not to say that such art is not possible. only that it is not for government or the church or the fundamentalists in media to pass judgement on them. let the art patrons, viewing and buying, decide without powers-that-be intervening.

      • August 10, 2011 at 1:23 am
        manuelbuencamino

        Thanks.

        My next questions:

        Is it okay for the CCP, a government funded institution, to promote art that glamorizes and/or advocates further victimization of victims, for example art that desecrates the victims of the Maguindanao massacre and glamorizes the Ampatuans? Is the exhibition of such artwork by the CCP not in fact an act of intervention by the powers that be? Isn’t there a difference between an exhibit in a private gallery and a government financed gallery?

        • August 11, 2011 at 10:35 pm
          Silver

          Actually there was an exhibit by Kiri Dalena regarding the Maguindanao massacre and it was nominated for the 2010 Ateneo art awards. You and I both know that any exhibit portraying gays or lesbians would be difficult or shut down too because the Catholic church would be there protesting. I have a question for you, why be selective on which medium to censor or question? It’s happening on media, tv and film too. Is it because they have a greater argument for freedom of expression as a means of disseminating information or the “truth.” If you’ve been to local exhibits before you’ll see this “blasphemous” collage of imagery has been around. Manuel Ocampo has done this with his early paintings. I don’t see the greater public patronizing the arts at all. If they did, those offended wouldn’t be offended by this show. The government extends little or no help at all to local artists. So the tax-payer-money reason is just offensive to artists. Difference between a private gallery and a government financed one? Simplistically, the other makes money off of the artist. However as mentioned in the article both should be agnostic in views. And as GabbyD stated powers that be are “the government (the president in this case) or the church or the fundamentalists in media (Hello Pinky Webb).”

          • August 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm
            manuelbuencamino

            “I have a question for you, why be selective on which medium to censor or question?”

            Why even talk censorship of creativity?

            “Difference between a private gallery and a government financed one?”

            A private gallery is not owned by the public hence it is less susceptible to censorship. A government financed one means politicians have the final say on matters concerning its activities.

          • August 12, 2011 at 10:49 am
            Silver

            And I answered it. Move on. Socratic method much.

        • August 11, 2011 at 11:51 pm
          Silver

          “Why even talk censorship of creativity?”

          Why not, its part of the discussion?

          “A private gallery is not owned by the public hence it is less susceptible to censorship. A government financed one means politicians have the final say on matters concerning its activities.”

          Yes, etc, etc, we could go on. Your question was open ended.

          • August 12, 2011 at 2:35 am
            manuelbuencamino

            It was a question.

    • August 10, 2011 at 2:00 am
      GabbyD

      it depends. what is the artistic statement?

      what is the piece saying, beyond mocking them? this is the value of artwork MB.

      • August 10, 2011 at 2:50 am
        manuelbuencamino

        GabbyD,

        Unless the artist tells you what his statement is, if indeed he has one, you are left to your own devices.

        Are you familiar with Lee Aguinaldo’s paintings. specially the period when he was doing geometric acrylics on marine plywood? They were beautiful paintings that sold for a lot of money.

        Did those paintings have a message? No. But they were great to look at because the play of colors, shades, lines, were optical illusions i.e. one could not create a 3D model out of some of them.

        How do I know the paintings did not have a message? Because I was hanging out with him then and even worked on a couple of them with him and not once did we talk about sending a message or making a statement other than “what you see is what you get.”

        So the value of the artwork is the artwork itself, GabbyD. In other words, the message is useless if the artwork is a piece of shit to begin with. Or to put it another way, those who call themselves artists can do better than using shit to convey their all-important message.

        • August 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm

          and I once asked an artist friend how to define art. He said, very simply, “if it sells.” Somebody has to like it enough to pay for it, and “message” is in that sense neither here nor there.

        • August 11, 2011 at 10:56 pm
          Silver

          Well, actually there has been a work of art made of shit. Its called Artist’s Shit (Merda d’Artista), 1961 by Piero Manzoni. “It is a joke, a parody of the art market, and a critique of consumerism and the waste it generates.”
          —Stephen Bury

          So as you can see its old news. The art world does know how to make fun of themselves maybe the Catholic church could use some humor too? Because in this case they’re not only in the role of spectator but part of the work too. Having said that, yes there are artists like Lee Aguinaldo who use the statement “what you see is what you get.” But it is too simplistic to dismiss that other artists go by this as well. Other as mentioned by GabbyD do have statements, others like Orlando R mentioned say “if it sells” and others none at all for reason they keep to themselves. So to say the the value of the artwork is the artwork itself, or that it stops at the surface does not hold true for all art. The best example I could give you to disprove this notion is Lee Aguinaldo’s contemporary, Roberto Chabet, father of Filipino Conceptual art.

          • August 12, 2011 at 2:29 am
            manuelbuencamino

            Yup. Chabet and Lee were friends and contemporaries. But moving on…

            I was not making a statement to apply to all artists. I was making a point that a message is not vital for a work to be considered as art. I maintain that the value of the artwork is the artwork itself because the message, if there is one, is the artwork itself, even if the piece of art is an erasure like what Rauschenberg did to one of De Kooning’s drawings. In other words, the artwork is the message, conceptual or otherwise.

            But we are straying from Angela’s post. What we should be discussing is the role of the State in the arts. That’s the real issue. Because the State can patronize one work of art or art form, ignore another, and criminalize still another (see the revised penal code on prohibited art). And because the State can turn art into a tool for propaganda.

            Look at the National Artist Awards. That was okay until GMA used it to reward a couple of her supporters (Alvarez and Caparas) during a time of bitter divisions in the country. Nabahiran tuloy ng pulitika ang lahat ng mga National Artists past, present, and future. And the whole idea of giving official recognition to some artists came under question.

            But just because State involvement in the arts is a slippery slope it does not mean that the State should abdicate its role in the nation’s intellectual and cultural development. What is necessary is to come to an understanding of the State’s role and to put it on a firm footing.

            At this point, I think a debate on the merits of the controversial exhibit is pointless unless we put it in that context. We have to be cognizant of the fact that, under the present dispensation, the State through the courts will be the final arbiter of this controversy. That means we’re all fucked unless we get our act together because the greatest enemy of creativity is a lawyer backed by a penal code.

            So we need to frame this debate. How active or passive should State involvement be? Is the right to artistic expression unlimited? If not, then who should police art? Should it be the State or the market that decides by patronizing what it likes and ignoring what it doesn’t like? Etc. etc.

            Personally, I think the State must encourage and support creativity, not police it. The State should be limited to funding and building infrastructures for the arts; and by that I mean not only buildings for the exhibition of visual and performing arts but also educational facilities. But that’s just me. What about you, what do you think about the State’s role?

        • August 12, 2011 at 11:03 am
          Silver

          …” I maintain that the value of the artwork is the artwork itself because the message, if there is one, is the artwork itself, even if the piece of art is an erasure like what Rauschenberg did to one of De Kooning’s drawings. In other words, the artwork is the message, conceptual or otherwise.”

          I would still have to disagree with this. Physicality of the artwork cannot be its sole value. There are other works based solely on the documentation of the idea.

          That means we’re all fucked unless we get our act together because the greatest enemy of creativity is a lawyer backed by a penal code.

          I agree. Actually, the penal code mentioned by Orlando R below was already protested a few years ago by artists for fear of censorship. And as we both can tell that did not amount to much.

          “So we need to frame this debate. How active or passive should State involvement be? Is the right to artistic expression unlimited? If not, then who should police art? Should it be the State or the market that decides by patronizing what it likes and ignoring what it doesn’t like? Etc. etc.”

          You should have arrived at this earlier. See my post at the bottom.

  2. August 10, 2011 at 1:55 am
    GabbyD

    its interesting. this thing…

    the key problem is that philippine laws encourage that groups shouldnt insult each other. its in the revised penal code. even art that encourages certain lifestyles are, in principle, prohibited. hence, the state, including pnoy, is enjoined to decide against art/expresssion that people find offensive.

    one way to live in society is to make sure citizens dont express themselves. i dont think its working anymore.

    • August 10, 2011 at 2:35 am

      Gabby, you have a good point. We should err on the side of keeping our peace.

      Anything gravely scandalous is criminal (Art. 200), as is any public exhibition or exposition that (1) promotes something contrary to good customs, public order, public morals, law, etc.; (2) is obscene; (3) glorifies criminals; or(4) offends a race or religion (Art. 201). This is because we have a category of crimes against decency and good customs.

      Nonetheless, nothing there criminalizes promotion of a gay lifestyle, unless that lifestyle is considered contrary to public morals. But the works of artists are covered if, for example, they offend religion (I suppose because being religious is decent or a matter of good customs).

      So, just because certain “righteous” ones take offense does not necessarily mean that the object of their ire has committed a crime. I’m not even sure if a tort suit will lie, since the righteous ones have to prove damages.

      If a TV personality offends you, you can switch channels or throw something at the tv, but you can’t sue. That makes sense, no?

      What is more than just offensive is that the penal laws are more likely to be invoked by the powerful against the powerless. I submit that the former can be sued for abuse of right. The artists can set this up as a test case.

      • August 11, 2011 at 11:43 pm
        Silver

        Sir, once again thank you for the info. So far you have been the only legal voice I’ve heard/read of in columns regarding this matter. I agree GabbyD has a good point. Are there any precedents in the Philippines to this case? There was a case abroad that cited government funding decisions cannot be based on whether the government agrees with the work of art’s message (consistent w/ First Amendment). If it were to hold contrary to this, they would only fund projects backing government views. This in effect is censorship so there are disputes how much involvement the government should take part in the arts. In this case local government called for closing down of an exhibit and withheld museum funding. In the end though, museum and artist won out, local gov’t had to pay withheld funding + damages. Work of art survives.

        Also in other countries there are legal art laws. One of which is appropriation, it allows the use of images (yes, even religious ones) under fair use . Also if they are 50++ years they become public domain. I’m not aware of any in the Phil, correct me if I’m wrong? Thank you.

        • August 16, 2011 at 6:49 pm

          yes, we have an Intellectual Property Code. Art is even protected on resale (called the droit de suite). But there must be a first sale, which goes back to the point of my artist friend – it isn’t “property” or a thing of value unless someone puts his money up for it.

  3. August 12, 2011 at 3:30 am
    manuelbuencamino

    Interesting read. Art in the time of sacrilege by Marie Yuviengco. http://interaksyon.com/article/10684/marie-yuvienco-art-in-the-time-of-sacrilege

    • August 12, 2011 at 11:21 am
      Silver

      Thanks, very interesting. OrlandoR posted something similar re the case of Pp v. Go Pin in other column. Burstyn v. Wilson would be an ideal precedent. However unlike the US, we’ve got the Penal code (Art. 200) instead of the 1st Amendment. The former may seem to favor heavily against artists however it has no clear definition of obscenity and does not cover grounds on “sacrilegious” charges. Look up Brooklyn Institute of Arts And Sciences v. City of New York. This is the Chris Ofili case that slighted Catholic conservatives. Interesting too.

      • August 16, 2011 at 6:50 pm

        I think my point was that perhaps Art. 201 is at least partly unconstitutional. However, it seems that this is not a well settled question.

        • August 17, 2011 at 9:52 am
          GabbyD

          aye. i dont know if its unconstitutional, but it certainly creates uncertainty when there doesnt need to be any. further, it pushes cultural arguments to the courts, which is not the best venue to settle them.

  4. August 12, 2011 at 11:52 am
    Silver

    After this maybe we could raise the issue where gov’t funding of the arts actually goes to. A few years ago, NCCA funds for the Baguio arts festival were questioned when such event was next to none existent in other words, a sham.

    Here is an article:
    http://www.aaa.org.hk/newsletter_detail.aspx?newsletter_id=864

    Similarly, I recall a gov’t sponsored art competition that never awarded its prize money to the winners. The competition details escape me now. I’ll try to remember and post back on this.

  5. August 12, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Raul Pangalangan: …The second fallacy is that it would have been okay if the offending art was displayed in a private gallery, but not at the CCP, “on public property and by a public agency,” “a state instrumentality [which] makes [the government] complicit to an attack on religion.”
    On the contrary, my dear Watson. A private gallery is completely free to judge art according to its aesthetic biases. But a publicly-funded gallery is bound by a document called the Philippine Constitution, which requires it to respect “freedom of speech [and] of expression” (Article III, Sec. 4) and “foster … a Filipino national culture … in a climate of free artistic and intellectual expression” (Article XIV, Sec. 14). By shutting down Kulô, the government is reduced to being the henchman of the neighborhood thug.

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/9801/%E2%80%98freedom-for-the-thought-we-hate%E2%80%99

    • August 12, 2011 at 1:47 pm
      GabbyD

      ty 4 the link. i dont understand this paragraph:

      “The fifth is the braggadocio by church lawyers that the Revised Penal Code provides enough basis to punish any person who publicly “offend[s] any race or religion.” Remember that the law likewise criminalizes defamatory speech, but—in order to reconcile it with the Bill of Rights—the courts have concocted the New York Times v. Sullivan test (adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court) that makes it more difficult to convict when it is a public officer who is defamed.”

      does pangalanan mean that the PhilSC has tested the Revised Penal code violation with a test case?

      that defamation,and the jurisdiction associated with it, APPLIES to the the revised penal code provisions?

      medyo malabo ang sinulat nya dito. i’d love to learn more. if there is jurisprudence built up on this issue, that would certainly clarify many things.

    • August 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm
      manuelbuencamino

      The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all artists. So when the government chooses to exhibit one artist’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.

      Thus, we take the argument to its logical conclusion: when the government shuts down an exhibit it becomes the henchman of the neighborhood thug and when the government puts up an exhibit it becomes the barker of the neighborhood artist.

      • August 12, 2011 at 8:11 pm
        GabbyD

        ” So when the government chooses to exhibit one artist’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.”

        by this argument, everything that a UP professor says is endorsed by the govt?

        i dont think you really believe that.

        • August 13, 2011 at 11:35 pm
          manuelbuencamino

          “by this argument, everything that a UP professor says is endorsed by the govt?”

          No.

          • August 14, 2011 at 2:07 am
            GabbyD

            i agree. hence, i you dont really believe what you previously wrote.

          • August 15, 2011 at 4:46 pm
            manuelbuencamino

            No Gabby. I don’t agree with what your reasoning. It’s unreasonable. And horribly twisted… like that symmetry argument you used in another blog.

          • August 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm
            GabbyD

            you dont agree and you agree that UP profs statements arent endorsed by the govt?

            whats your argument? or is there no argument?

        • August 14, 2011 at 9:12 pm
          Bert

          Question, GabbyD. Is the UP professor owned by the government?

        • August 16, 2011 at 12:46 am
          manuelbuencamino

          Gabby,

          “when the government chooses to exhibit one artist’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.”

          That’s my argument.

          “by this argument, everything that a UP professor says is endorsed by the govt?”

          The answer to that is No. Your argument is terrible just like that symmetry bit you tried to pull off in another blog.

          Maliwanag na ba?

          • August 16, 2011 at 4:09 am
            GabbyD

            is that how it works? that the govt chooses “work” and not “artists”?

            i dont think you believe that either, as you write “The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all artists.” note: not art work!

            i think we ought to agree: they choose the theme, then choose artists, and the artist chooses the art.

            same with all employees of the govt that are tasked to write and give positions/opinions.

            there is no difference. replace “artist” with “professor”, and it ought to make no difference…

            ex: “The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all professors. So when the government chooses to exhibit one professor’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.”

            see?

            _______
            btw, if u have an argument against my symmetry argument, i’d love to read it. if i’m wrong, i’ll gladly say so. ok? unless this is a preference thing — i like indy 1 and you like star wars?

      • August 12, 2011 at 10:39 pm
        Silver

        “The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all artists.”

        Have you ever been to the National Museum? There are rooms there filled with cobwebs because they have been left unattended. No exhibits have been held in them for years. Why? No funding. Also, some private galleries are now warehouse spaces. Why? To accommodate rise of the art market and exhibiting artists.

        “So when the government chooses to exhibit one artist’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.”

        Which leads to me to… the irony in your statement. How this can even be raised when endorsement is non existent in the first place. And since this is case, I think they should meddle little or none at all. Private galleries do more for artists. Heck, even foreign grants do more for local artists.

        • August 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm
          manuelbuencamino

          Silver,

          “Have you ever been to the National Museum? …etc”

          Well that makes my argument stronger. If funds are limited, then the choice where to spend those funds makes the endorsement that much more meaningful.

          “Which leads to me to… the irony in your statement. How this can even be raised when endorsement is non existent in the first place. ”

          Of course there is an endorsement. Putting aside a part of limited funds to exhibit an artist’s work is a very strong endorsement. And if there are as you say “no funds” then why and where did the government scrape the funds to mount an exhibit for a particular work of art?

          • August 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm
            Silver

            No funding was meant for my mention of crickets gathering at the National Museum. Not the CCP exhibit. In my other post I mention “The government extends little or no help at all to local artists.” So the discussion on my part is not merely monetary. An endorsement may not necessarily equal funding and v.v. I highly doubt that the CCP Kulo exhibit was “endorsed” by the government (Noynoy et al.). If it were, then it would not have been mounted from the get go.

      • August 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm
        manuelbuencamino

        Gabby,

        1. “is that how it works? that the govt chooses “work” and not “artists”?

        i dont think you believe that either, as you write “The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all artists.” note: not art work!”

        Picky-picky. Should I also pick on your capitalization and punctuation? You know what I meant with what I said.

        2. “there is no difference. replace “artist” with “professor”, and it ought to make no difference…

        ex: “The thing is there is not enough space to accomodate all professors. So when the government chooses to exhibit one professor’s work over another’s, it is tantamount to an endorsement.”

        No silly. Stop insisting. You didn’t pay attention to your philosophy teacher at the ateneo. Go pick up your toys and play somewhere else. I’m tired of your silly games.

        • August 17, 2011 at 9:08 am
          GabbyD

          so its games when i’m right? or when you are too lazy to defend your words? remeber, i’m quoting YOU DIRECTLY. i’m not making stuff up.

          look, i didnt say you were wrong — only that i dont believe you MEANT what you WROTE. i think you believe something similar, but not what you wrote.

          here’s what i think, and you can correct me if i’m wrong:
          1) there are only a few cases where the “art work” is contracted, and NOT the artist. its when the installations are large, long-lived, and expensive. think statues in the park, for example. the reasons why are obvious — for ALL OTHER CASES OF INTELLECTUAL WORK, its generally true that the contract is ON THE ARTIST.

          2) you believe in the “mission impossible” theory of govt. as in “if your work, get caught, people hate it, i get the flak… etc, i will disavow any knowledge and support…”

          if so, you can believe that. i can believe you believe that. (i am against it, philosophically; govt shouldnt operate that way, even if they are observed to work like that).

          finally, thanks angela for the space.

          2)

    • August 17, 2011 at 9:03 pm

      Hi Angela: Somehow there is a misconception here.. The Constitution is binding, yes. But it says “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of expression…” It is addressed to Congress. It is not addressed to the Executive, which controls CCP.. I think it’s that simple, but it “got away” in the clamor.

      If X, a troll or Astroturf, came into my blog, using ad hominem arguments, I disallow. He’s free to find some other site for his nonsense, and the Free Speech clause demands that Congress not pass a law banning any entity from allowing X to speak. But I can, in the privacy of my home or my blog. Freedom of speech is “out there” but it is not a duty imposed on us to publish what any Juan, Pepe, or Pablo says just because they demand free expression.

      Think about it another way. A publisher has freedom to publish (because that is part of freedom of expression). But his freedom to publish is also his freedom to accept/edit/reject articles submitted to him. CCP is just like a publisher. It has discretion, and it might exercise that discretion unwisely, but that wouldn’t be a violation of freedom of expression.

  6. August 14, 2011 at 10:43 pm
    Benson See

    Karen’s radio partner is VIC “webcam scandal pictures” de Leon Lima.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter
  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago