Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media

In summary: They can be a lot of fun, or a lot of trouble.We've seen it happen too many times in the US. The UK is well-known for soccer-related violence, too.Flash mobs can occur for a number of reasons, including premieres, street performance by... musicians, protests, and even weddings. They can be a lot of fun, or a lot of trouble.In summary, the London riots were fueled by social media and caused or worsened by them. There are new trends of mobs and riots happening because of social media, and there are legislative efforts to criminalize flash mobs.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
WhoWee said:
I'm SHOCKED that al jazeera would run a story comparing unrest in the US to unrest in Egypt.:rolleyes:

The article was not about such a comparison. There you go again, taking a minor tangential issue and trying to steer the whole thread into discussing it.

Are you doubting the facts presented in the article, or is your only problem just one line in one paragraph?
 
  • #73
Jack21222 said:
The article was not about such a comparison. There you go again, taking a minor tangential issue and trying to steer the whole thread into discussing it.

Are you doubting the facts presented in the article, or is your only problem just one line in one paragraph?

You made a point to post it. How does my commenting on YOUR post pull the thread off topic?
Your post-my bold
"A rail transit provider in the United States disabled mobile phone services to prevent a planned protest on Thursday, attracting criticism and unflattering comparisons to crackdowns on dissent in the Middle East."
 
  • #74
So you didn't bother to read the article. I was just providing snippets to show what the article was about.

Anyway, would you like to comment on the actions of BART, or continue with the "hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"
 
  • #75
Jack21222 said:
So you didn't bother to read the article. I was just providing snippets to show what the article was about.

Anyway, would you like to comment on the actions of BART, or continue with the "hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"

I like the idea of (first) flashing a message (to everyone with a cell in an area targeted for attack) that vandalism and violence will be prosecuted. Then if activity continues - a temporary block with an additional message explaining why - temporary meaning perhaps an hour to cool down the growth of the mob. I think the 911 capability should be maintained on all phones in spite of the block.

As for ""hurr durr Al Jazeera derp derp derping?"" - no comment?
 
  • #76
DoggerDan said:
I believe the right as explained in the Constitution (1st Amendment) is the right to peaceably assemble. Outlawing non-peaceful assemblies is Constitutional.

How would you know ahead of time? Isn't this a bit like arresting you for a crime the government thinks you are going to commit in the future? As in the movie Minority Report.
 
  • #77
SteveL27 said:
How would you know ahead of time? Isn't this a bit like arresting you for a crime the government thinks you are going to commit in the future? As in the movie Minority Report.
That's the tack that the ACLU will take in court, and they will win, IMO. The sad thing is that large crowds can be unpredictable, and violence and vandalism can erupt even though the organizer(s) had no such intent. Prior restraint is a very slippery slope.
 
  • #78
The drift of the thread seems to be that not much can be done to stop or at least minimize this sort of thing. Some things that might be done are to change laws (provide tougher penalties), and actually uniformly enforce and prosecute them, so that the consequences for getting caught are more or less certain and pretty severe. But that's not likely to happen for a number of reasons.

So it seems that this trend in electronically facilitated 'wilding' and thuggery isn't just here to stay for the foreseeable future, but will increasingly be a fact of life in urban areas, since the police really can't protect against it and law abiding citizens are forbidden by law to use the sort of force that would be sufficient to stop it.
 
  • #79
ThomasT said:
The drift of the thread seems to be that not much can be done to stop or at least minimize this sort of thing. Some things that might be done are to change laws (provide tougher penalties), and actually uniformly enforce and prosecute them, so that the consequences for getting caught are more or less certain and pretty severe. But that's not likely to happen for a number of reasons.

So it seems that this trend in electronically facilitated 'wilding' and thuggery isn't just here to stay for the foreseeable future, but will increasingly be a fact of life in urban areas, since the police really can't protect against it and law abiding citizens are forbidden by law to use the sort of force that would be sufficient to stop it.

oh, that last part would only go on for so long before citizens get fed up and oust all the politicians who support it. in fact, letting the public get a black eye by sitting back and not policing is just the sort of manipulation you'd want to exert to get approval for applying more draconian measures.
 
  • #80
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?
 
  • #81
WhoWee said:
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?

if the G8 were to visit London for a summit right now, cops would be busting heads of protestors left and right. same would go here at a democrat or republican national committee meeting.
 
  • #82
WhoWee said:
You really can't expect to have it both ways. If the police have to wait until a crime has taken place - then make sure they don't violate the rights of protestors when making an arrest - damage will occur, people will be injured, and some (if not most) of the criminals will exade capture and prosecution - won't they?

Hypotheticals:

1) Suppose a newspaper plans to publish the location of a demonstration in which there is some nonzero probability of violence. May the government order the newspaper to not publish that information?

2) May the government forcibly shut down the operation of a newspaper that publishes information displeasing to the government?
 
  • #83
rhody said:
CAC,

Doubt no more... rootX beat me to this. I was just about to post it. The British Prime Minister, David Carmeron has publically repeatedly displayed his disgust with the situation, no surprise that he is considering this option.

Well I was wrong there!

I hope they don't actually take that step though. However, in the UK, I may be wrong, but isn't there technically no right to freedom of speech there?
 
  • #84
Evo said:
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news [Broken]

If you explicitly organize a group with the intention of causing violence, it's surely criminal. The thing is, that's already a crime.

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/08/04/mayor-jackson-vetoes-clevelands-flash-mob-law

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2011/07/26/clevelands-flash-mob-law-fuzzy-maybe-illegal

The law, as it's written, adds penalties for not only actions, but how the person found out about the event.

To understand why this is a constitutional issue: Many cities already have laws on the books about "illegal assemblies" that wouldn't past a constitutional review. Same thing with "failure to disperse" ordinances.

Imagine a legitimate political protest where people are arrested for various reasons. Even if the original reason they were arrested turned out to be invalid, they are now facing a second charge they have to defend based on the way they heard about the protest. Furthermore, this is essentially penalizing people not for the action, but for participation in free speech. For example, if someone was arrested at a protest, and they had had heard about it through a flyer, they would be facing lesser charges then if they heard about it over the internet.

These arguments may sound subtle to you, but they are an extremely important topic right now. Since more and more political organizing and communication is done over the internet, the potential chilling of that vehicle is very important to people who are concerned about civil liberties.

Let me give you a practical example. A group is planning an anti-war protest, and they distribute information over the internet. Members might be inclined to say, I am hesitant to go because if an arrest does occur, I will now be facing greater repercussions then before. This is a legal disincentive to use the internet as a means of communication.

It also establishes a bad precedent, targeting methods of speech instead of criminal actions themselves.

EDIT: Furthermore in order to be enforceable (which it probably wouldn't be) the police would have to be able to search all of a persons' communications to have proof they received knowledge of the event electronically, and possibly their friends communications.I am not trying to argue the validity of these positions, I know you and I have a very different take on such issues, i am just answering your question from the point of view of civil libertarians.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
SteveL27 said:
Hypotheticals:

1) Suppose a newspaper plans to publish the location of a demonstration in which there is some nonzero probability of violence. May the government order the newspaper to not publish that information?

2) May the government forcibly shut down the operation of a newspaper that publishes information displeasing to the government?

To be fair the law in question as I understand it was not suggesting outlawing the communication of such information (would would hands down be unconstitutional) but rather adding penalties if someone were arrested for the means in which they communicated beforehand.
 
  • #87
Galteeth said:
To be fair the law in question as I understand it was not suggesting outlawing the communication of such information (would would hands down be unconstitutional) but rather adding penalties if someone were arrested for the means in which they communicated beforehand.

I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.

Personally I'm troubled by this incident. It's a precedent that indicates worse things to come. That's why I asked how far the government can go in shutting down communications before anything unlawful occurs. Most people would agree the government can't shut down a newspaper ... but apparently they can shut down cell service. At least today. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
SteveL27 said:
I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.

Personally I'm troubled by this incident. It's a precedent that indicates worse things to come. That's why I asked how far the government can go in shutting down communications before anything unlawful occurs. Most people would agree the government can't shut down a newspaper ... but apparently they can shut down cell service. At least today. Tomorrow? Stay tuned.

Well, BART is apparently expecting another protest Monday. Anonymous started hacking them.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092221-93/anonymous-defaces-bart-site-leaks-user-data/
 
  • #89
SteveL27 said:
I must confess I'm thinking only about the recent incident where SF's BART shut down cell communications in advance of a protest, which ended up not happening. A lot of people seem to think that prior restraint and punishing people for what they MIGHT do is perfectly ok. This was the first time in the U.S. that a government agency shut down cell communications in advance of a lawful assembly of protesters.
They had a permit? You can't just protest anywhere, anytime, you need a permit.
 
  • #90
Evo said:
They had a permit? You can't just protest anywhere, anytime, you need a permit.

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.

It doesn't say anything about a permit there. Do you think the citizens of Egypt should have gotten a permit from Mubarak before protesting his brutal rule?

Can you see how in general, requiring people to get a permit from the government, in order to protest against that government, would prevent any population from ever protesting against an evil government?

Are people really under the impression that you need a permit (from the government!) to protest against the government in this country?

But that said; you are not addressing the fundamental point of whether the government can shut down cell service to prevent people from protesting. I am willing to stipulate that a flash mob on a crowded subway platform is a hell of a bad idea. I'm not defending criminal vandalism. But in this particular case, there was no protest; only prior restraint of free speech rights.

In the future, should government agencies in the U.S. be allowed to shut down cellphones, shut down Internet service, shut down newspapers and television stations, to prevent the possibility that someone might break the law?

That's what's at issue. When foreign dictators do the exact same thing, we have no trouble condemning their actions. But recently Cameron's remarks in England, and BART's actions in San Francisco this past Thursday, have brought the issue home.
 
Last edited:
  • #91
SteveL27 said:
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.
Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?

Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit
 
  • #92
Evo said:
Did they have a permit? You do know that you have to have a permit for protests in public places?

Seriously, take some time to understand the law before you make posts.

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

it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.
 
  • #93
Proton Soup said:
it's clear that he understands. and the wiki is making a pretty good argument that those laws are used to deny people of their rights.
It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law. I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.
 
  • #94
Evo said:
I don't think he does understand based on his posts.

The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.

heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.
 
  • #95
Would MLK have been granted permits for people to gather in southern cities and march in support of civil rights? I don't think so. The use of police dogs, water-cannons, and truncheons, etc against peaceful marchers argues strongly against prior restraint (requiring permits from the authorities lest all the marchers be considered rioters and be dealt with accordingly.)

I lived through that time, and remember thinking "what have these people done to get treated this way?" It's easy to pose such questions as if they were dichotomies, but that is rarely useful or even marginally honest, IMO.
 
  • #96
Proton Soup said:
well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it. writing a new law won't help. if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.
That's why I was so surprised in the London thread that everyone was so for pre-emptive and total police control, without question, and unreasonably harsh prison sentences, IMO.
 
  • #97
Proton Soup said:
well, i see the social media thing as neither here nor there. it's just a tool, and a few hooligans have learned how to use it.
I think that the more or less instantaneous and untraceable electronic communication capability isn't "just a tool". It's a very effective tool that seems to enable the hooligans to stay ahead of efforts to stop them, as the OP and other posters have pointed out.

Proton Soup said:
... writing a new law won't help.
I'm not sure about that. If penalties for the sorts of organized criminal activities that we're talking about were increased, and then uniformly enforced and prosecuted, then I think it would make a big difference. But I also think that none of that is likely to happen.

Proton Soup said:
... if you come down hard on people for using this tool, they'll just choose another one. word of mouth, a pair of sneakers hanging over a power line, chalk on a sidewalk.
But those means are much less effective and probably wouldn't enable the hooligans to stay ahead of police.

Anyway, you can't come down hard on people simply for using electronic media. What might work is increasing sentences for those caught and convicted of crimes and having those tougher laws consistently enforced and prosecuted. But part of the problem is that all components of the criminal justice system (including enforcement, prosecution, and incarcaration) are incapable of handling the sort of increases that that would entail.

Proton Soup said:
... heck, the punitive nature of our system is likely part of what is stoking some of these events in the US, anyway. it's a kind of revenge.
I have to disagree with this. Our system doesn't seem inordinately punitive to me. I feel very free, very fortunate, and very thankful as a citizen of the US for the sort of system that we have.

These 'wilding' organized criminal actions are the actions of kids who've grown up in cultures of violence and contempt for authority. This antisocial behavior isn't about anything important. It isn't revenge against abuse or insurrection. It's primarily just lots of very unwise young people doing what they can get away with. They're devoid of any sense of societal responsibility and respect for the rights of others.

If their actions are minimally punished or just excused for one reason or another, then they will not only continue but increase. And that's what I predict will be the case.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Evo said:
If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors ...

I have a hard time believing that anybody believes this.

Never once have I ever seen police protecting protesters. MANY times have I seen or heard of police beating, arresting, and even KILLING protesters.

Here's a video of police "protecting" a protester by shooting her in the head with rubber bullets for holding a sign, and then laughing afterward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnEjzYCHidw
 
  • #99
A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.



Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez
 
Last edited:
  • #100
Evo said:
A KKK member seeks a black police officer to protect him in a rally in 1983.
So you think your job sucks sometimes? Consider this Austin, Texas policeman charged with protecting this fine upstanding member of the community during a KKK rally as protestors were closing in on them in 1983. To protect and serve. You don't necessarily get to pick who you have to protect sometimes.
This is picture story only, it conveys a whole lot of message. The image speaks for itself, wonder what the KKK guy felt after this about the Cop. Good Samaritan story revisited.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/116775#ixzz1V4EkfPez

You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.
 
  • #101
Evo said:
It's clear from his posts that he was unaware of the law.

I'm painfully aware of the modern development of "free speech zones" and the like. You seem to believe that civil liberties are obtained by asking the government's permission. This is not the time or the place for a lengthy history lesson; but the absurdity of asking a repressive government's permission to protest that government's policies speaks for itself. If people waited for government permission, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus, gays would be in jail, and for that matter, we'd still be a British colony.

Evo said:
I really wish people would invest some time in researching the facts before they post. A lot of members do take the time, so it's unfair that some people don't.

A totally unwarranted personal attack. It seems to me you're drinking a lot of government Kool-Aid. The U.S. Constitution gives people the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. Permits and free speech zones are the latest attempt to prevent people from asserting their rights.

In any event, you continue to focus on the protesters. I've already said that I'll stipulate that a flash mob on a subway platform at rush hour is not a good idea. The question at hand is not whether this particular group of protesters are expressing themselves in an appropriate manner; the question is whether BART is within its rights, legally and morally, to shut down cell service in advance of a protest, before any crime has been committed? In fact, before anyone had even shown up?

It's a slippery slope problem. If what BART did is ok this time, what is the limit? That's why I started a few posts ago by asking if people believe that the government has the right to shut down a newspaper for printing things the government doesn't like. WikiLeaks comes to mind. Bradley Manning is in jail and at one point was being subjected to treatment that was illegal and bordered on psychological torture. His "crime?" Revealing some of the corruption and, uh, cattle excrement [LOL I got ***'d] at the heart of our recent foreign policy misadventures.

So ... can the government torture someone -- someone who has not yet been convicted of any crime, mind you -- because the government says so? Or do we still have due process in this country?

Evo my friend, due process and the rule of law are not something you ask the government permission for. Due process and the rule of law are things people fight for every day in the courts and in politics and in every interaction with the government. And throughout history, when the courts and the political system didn't work ... people in this country laid down their lives for due process and the rule of law.

If BART can turn off cell service before anyone even shows up to protest; then what CAN'T the government do, in your opinion?

Evo said:
The wiki is whiney, IMO. If you want to peacefully gather in a significant number, precautions must be taken for the benefit of the protestors. Police are sent to protect the protestors and manage the crowds, traffic, etc... It's called common sense, something that seems to be in short supply lately, IMO.

I'm sure President Mubarak would agree. I just wonder if you've thought through the consequences of your own naive trust in getting government's "permission" to oppose its policies.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904823804576502471452310218.html"
LONDON—After furious race riots broke out in London's Tottenham area 26 years ago, government and local authorities poured millions of pounds into the district and especially Broadwater Farm estate, a notorious housing project that was the epicenter of the 1985 unrest.
and
Meanwhile, gang culture has persisted, fueled, according to community workers, by a negative attitude to police and authority that was one of the legacies of the 1985 riot
I am not sympathsizing with the rioter's in any way. That being said, a hostile relationship between the police and people who are forced to live there is almost a 100% guarantee that history repeats itself. Sadly in this case, it has proven true. It isn't all about the money in the end, it is about lack of respect. Maybe this time, this issue will be addressed in the long term. It will be tough to do, I am sure of that.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
Jack21222 said:
You had to dig back 30 years to find an example? When I said I've never seen it happen, I should point out that I was under 1 year old when this particular instance occurred. This was before police adopted the tactic of firing rubber bullets at head-level to disperse crowds.
When the protests don't become riots, why on Earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.

Apparently the police protection works.
 
  • #104
Evo said:
When the protests don't become riots, why on Earth would the police protection make the news? "Newsflash - Nothing happened today at a peaceful protest which was protected by local police." Film at 11.

Apparently the police protection works.

Police are frequently assigned to protect the WBC people when they protest.EDIT: In most cases, protestors don't have much to fear from other civilians. Groups like the KKK and Westboro would be exceptions.

"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.
 
  • #105
Galteeth said:
"Apparently the police protection works." I'm sure you're not suggesting that police never rough up protestors.
No, I'm saying when they do, it's in the news.
 
<h2>1. What are violent flash mobs organized through social media?</h2><p>Violent flash mobs are a form of organized group violence that is planned and coordinated through social media platforms. These events typically involve a large group of individuals gathering at a specific location, often with the intention of causing chaos, destruction, or harm to others.</p><h2>2. How do these violent flash mobs come together?</h2><p>Social media provides a platform for individuals to quickly and easily communicate and spread information to a large number of people. Organizers of violent flash mobs can use social media to invite others, share details and instructions, and coordinate the time and location of the event.</p><h2>3. What are the potential consequences of violent flash mobs organized through social media?</h2><p>The consequences of these events can be severe, both for the individuals involved and for the community as a whole. Participants may face criminal charges, and innocent bystanders can be injured or traumatized. These events can also damage the reputation and safety of the community where they occur.</p><h2>4. Can social media platforms be held responsible for these violent flash mobs?</h2><p>While social media platforms can be used to organize and promote these events, they are not directly responsible for the actions of individuals. However, some platforms have policies in place to remove content that promotes violence or criminal activity.</p><h2>5. How can we prevent or address violent flash mobs organized through social media?</h2><p>Preventing these events requires a combination of measures, including monitoring and removing content that promotes violence, educating the public about the potential consequences of participating in these events, and working with law enforcement to identify and prosecute organizers. It is also important for communities to address underlying issues that may contribute to the organization of these events, such as social and economic inequalities.</p>

1. What are violent flash mobs organized through social media?

Violent flash mobs are a form of organized group violence that is planned and coordinated through social media platforms. These events typically involve a large group of individuals gathering at a specific location, often with the intention of causing chaos, destruction, or harm to others.

2. How do these violent flash mobs come together?

Social media provides a platform for individuals to quickly and easily communicate and spread information to a large number of people. Organizers of violent flash mobs can use social media to invite others, share details and instructions, and coordinate the time and location of the event.

3. What are the potential consequences of violent flash mobs organized through social media?

The consequences of these events can be severe, both for the individuals involved and for the community as a whole. Participants may face criminal charges, and innocent bystanders can be injured or traumatized. These events can also damage the reputation and safety of the community where they occur.

4. Can social media platforms be held responsible for these violent flash mobs?

While social media platforms can be used to organize and promote these events, they are not directly responsible for the actions of individuals. However, some platforms have policies in place to remove content that promotes violence or criminal activity.

5. How can we prevent or address violent flash mobs organized through social media?

Preventing these events requires a combination of measures, including monitoring and removing content that promotes violence, educating the public about the potential consequences of participating in these events, and working with law enforcement to identify and prosecute organizers. It is also important for communities to address underlying issues that may contribute to the organization of these events, such as social and economic inequalities.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
4
Replies
125
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top