WebProNews » SCOTUS http://www.webpronews.com Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business Sun, 19 May 2013 19:41:48 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 ‘Equality’ Is Facebook’s Top Term Surrounding Same-Sex Marriage Debate http://www.webpronews.com/equality-is-facebooks-top-term-surrounding-same-sex-marriage-debate-2013-03 http://www.webpronews.com/equality-is-facebooks-top-term-surrounding-same-sex-marriage-debate-2013-03#comments Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:51:03 +0000 Josh Wolford http://www.webpronews.com/?p=222542 Yesterday you may have noticed that your Facebook news feed was very red, and that there were a bunch of equals signs everywhere. This was the result of the Supreme Court beginning to hear arguments on California’s Prop 8 same-sex marriage ban. All of the red equals signs were simply marriage equality supporters, well, showing their support.

The red equals sign was a play on the standard blue and yellow equals sign logo for the Human Rights Campaign.

Today, Facebook has some quick numbers on the top-buzzing terms over the last day, and it looks like equality has won out.

According to Facebook’s Talk Meter, which looks at buzz around specific events, the term “Equality” was the most-used term surrounding the gay marriage debate. Facebook says its use was up 5,000% on Tuesday.

Also:

The top age group talking about the landmark cases yesterday, in advance of oral arguments, was the 35-44 range followed by 25-34 and 45-54.

Geographically speaking, people in Washington, D.C. were buzzing the most in anticipation of the hearings, followed by users in Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado.

Here’s Facebook’s full list of the top ten terms buzzing on the network on Tuesday.

  1. Equality
  2. DOMA
  3. Supreme Court
  4. Perry
  5. Kennedy
  6. Prop 8
  7. Kagan
  8. SCOTUS
  9. Scalia
  10. Defense of Marriage

Don’t expect the Facebook buzz for same-sex-related and Supreme Court-related topics to die down today. Tuesday, the court heard arguments on California’s Prop 8. But today, the court will begin to hear arguments on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which barred many federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriage (in terms of some benefits and such). Many high-profile tech companies and other American businesses (including Facebook) have filed a amicus brief arguing that DOMA is simply bad for business.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/equality-is-facebooks-top-term-surrounding-same-sex-marriage-debate-2013-03/feed 0 Pelosi/Boehner Photo Goes Viral Thanks To Twitter http://www.webpronews.com/pelosiboehner-photo-goes-viral-thanks-to-twitter-2012-06 http://www.webpronews.com/pelosiboehner-photo-goes-viral-thanks-to-twitter-2012-06#comments Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:52:17 +0000 Amanda Crum http://www.webpronews.com/?p=177741 Thursday was a landmark day for some people as the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding President Obama’s health care initiative, which would make Medicaid available for tens of thousands of people and change the rules about pre-existing conditions for all health care providers. The catch is that it would also make individual insurance mandatory for every U.S. citizen and would impose a tax otherwise.

That last part has a lot of people upset.

A lot of people took to social media yesterday to voice their opinions on the matter. A lot. So many, in fact, that I’m surprised the internet didn’t break. Among some of the funniest and most scathing comments were, of course, on Twitter, which is nothing new. However, what’s different about this topic is the photo that went viral to accompany it.

When the decision was announced, emotions ran high, and that is proven no better than it is in this picture of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is the picture of elation, standing next to House Speaker John Boehner, who looks a bit like a kid who just watched a bully take away his favorite toy.

Actually, it’s been reported that this photo was really taken a few hours before the ruling, but because of its obvious potential for hilarity, it’s being associated with the SCOTUS announcement.

pelosi boehner

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/pelosiboehner-photo-goes-viral-thanks-to-twitter-2012-06/feed 5 SCOTUS Was Probably Too Busy Today for Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn, & Yahoo http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-was-probably-too-busy-today-for-facebook-zynga-linkedin-yahoo-2012-06 http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-was-probably-too-busy-today-for-facebook-zynga-linkedin-yahoo-2012-06#comments Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:39:21 +0000 Drew Bowling http://www.webpronews.com/?p=177284 It’s reasonable to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court only had one item to mark off on its to-do list for today, the last day of the term: make a decision on President Obama’s health care law. Given the gravity of the court’s ruling, the internet has been buzzing about little else since the decision was announced shortly after 10AM this morning. While proponents and opponents alike vociferously add their comments to the discussion currently being waged on the innernets, the monumental SCOTUS decision had some collateral side-effects to a few of the top tech companies who were left empty-handed as they awaited a decision on an unrelated case.

Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo, among companies from other industries, had filed a brief with the Supreme Court earlier this year related to a lawsuit filed by an Ohio woman against the title company, First American Financial Corp., that handled her house purchase due to allegations that it violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. She hadn’t actually incurred any direct harm from First Financial’s dealing with her bank but she staked her case on the premise that the company violated the federal law and, thus, she sued for monetary damages.

According to Kashmir Hill of Forbes, the appeal is what piqued the interest of the aforementioned tech companies because, given all of the legal matters involved with online privacy, the companies have a particular interest in what it calls “no-injury lawsuits,” which would include class action lawsuits.

Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo joined forces to file a brief [pdf] in the case urging the Supreme Court not to allow people to sue them for breaking federal laws when those people suffered no actual injury. Specific federal laws that folks tend to get these companies on are the Electronic Communications Act, the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act — all laws designed to protect the privacy of your communications.

While the companies had a vested, albiet self-preserving, interest in this case, they were all left empty handed today as the Supreme Court changed course and decided to not make a ruling on the First Financial case.

Meanwhile, Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo will have to find another hardly related case to hitch themselves onto in order to try to preclude any possible lawsuits stemming from potential violations of privacy law. The collaboration of several big tech companies to try to attach themselves to this particular case about real estate dealings is somewhat puzzling because it really does require a detailed imagination to relate the two topics. At any rate, if these companies felt they could broadly interpet a SCOTUS decision that overturned the ruling against First Financial, there are likely many other lawsuits and appeals that the companies will likely try to poach for their own cause.

[Via Forbes.]

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-was-probably-too-busy-today-for-facebook-zynga-linkedin-yahoo-2012-06/feed 0 Health Care Decision: Sarah Palin One Of Many Politicians Tweeting http://www.webpronews.com/health-care-decision-sarah-palin-one-of-many-politicians-tweeting-2012-06 http://www.webpronews.com/health-care-decision-sarah-palin-one-of-many-politicians-tweeting-2012-06#comments Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:39:11 +0000 Amanda Crum http://www.webpronews.com/?p=177158 Sarah Palin has never been known to hold her tongue, particularly when it comes to President Obama and his initiatives, and she took to Twitter about a half hour ago to voice her opinion about the surprising and controversial vote made by the Supreme Court today to uphold Obama’s health care initiative.

Of course, she was not alone. Thousands of politicians and celebrities have taken to social media to start a conversation about the act, which would tax citizens in 2014 who don’t have health insurance/Medicaid. Under the mandate, everyone would be required to purchase health insurance, Medicaid would be made available to over 16,000 people, and no one could be denied by health care providers over a pre-existing condition.

Palin and several others tweeted about the news as soon as it broke.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/health-care-decision-sarah-palin-one-of-many-politicians-tweeting-2012-06/feed 0 Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum File-Sharing Case http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-tenenbaum-file-sharing-case-2012-05 http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-tenenbaum-file-sharing-case-2012-05#comments Mon, 21 May 2012 19:23:05 +0000 Zach Walton http://www.webpronews.com/?p=159584 ]]> We reported last week on the efforts of Charles Nesson to have the Supreme Court hear his client’s (Joel Tenenbaum) case. The Supreme Court has denied Nesson’s petition. It’s unfortunate since a Supreme Court verdict would go a long way in clearing up the mess we’re in right now.

As we explained on Friday, the problem came in the form of the original jury award in Tenenbaum’s case. The judge overturned the jury’s decision, however, saying that the award was unconstitutional. When the case went to the appellate level, the judge said that the trial judge couldn’t denounce the award as unconstitutional without first using remittitur.

That funky word – remittitur – is the main problem here though. Remittitur is a process that the judge can use to slash the award before reaching any kind of constitutional question. As Ars Technica points out, judges must try to resolve processes using “lower-order issues” before they can even approach any questions of constitutionality.

So what does the refusal of the Supreme Court mean? Tenenbaum will be heading back to the trial level where the judge will more than likely apply remittitur. Unfortunately, remittitur has a drawback – the RIAA can accept the lesser amount or they can force Tenenbaum through the legislative process again. The goal, according to Nesson, is to get Tenenbaum to settle so they can send a message to other would be file-sharers.

The message according to Nesson is that the RIAA controls the Internet. He says that the RIAA is creating an “urban legend” of sorts that will scare people away from using the Internet. He says their goal is to “reverse the tide of the digital future.”

While I regret that the Supreme Court didn’t choose to hear this case, I think that Nesson may have played a part in their refusal. I agree that the RIAA was trying to create this “urban legend” during the last decade, but they have cleaned their act up in the last few years. While their tactics may still seem awful and draconian to us, they probably appear far less offensive to the Justices.

Nesson’s argument that Tenenbaum wasn’t responsible because the songs would have been pirated anyway probably didn’t win over any of the Justices either. The fact of the matter is that Tenenbaum was caught and he admitted to the file-sharing. While we may agree that the music would have been pirated either way, Tenenbaum has already submitted himself to the courts with his admission.

The only thing we can hope for now is that the Supreme Court will hear a similar case someday, but it looks like it won’t be Tenenbaum. The only thing he can do is keep on fighting or just settle. Considering that the RIAA seems to spare no expense when it comes to court battles, I’m putting my money on a settlement happening anytime soon.

We’ve reached out to Nesson for comment and we’ll update this story if we hear anything back.

UPDATE

Nesson got back to us and provided this short comment:

“Back to the district court for judge to consider remitting the verdict to a reasonable amount.”

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-tenenbaum-file-sharing-case-2012-05/feed 3 Charles Nesson Says RIAA Creating “Urban Legend” Around Copyright http://www.webpronews.com/charles-nesson-says-riaa-creating-urban-legend-around-copyright-2012-05 http://www.webpronews.com/charles-nesson-says-riaa-creating-urban-legend-around-copyright-2012-05#comments Wed, 16 May 2012 15:12:24 +0000 Zach Walton http://www.webpronews.com/?p=157012 You may recall the story of Joel Tenenbaum, the young man who chose to fight the RIAA when the group began to go after individual file sharers during the last decade. He has been caught in a legal hell for the latter half of the decade going from court to court and it looks like it will never end.

Enough is enough or says Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Charles Nesson, in a petition to the Supreme Court. The document obtained by Ars Technica shows a passionate argument against the RIAA and its tactics of threatening users unless they settle outside of court for a few thousand dollars.

The first part of the petition points out that the DOJ is in cahoots with the RIAA by pursuing the remittitur procedure against Tenenbaum to keep him in “endless litigation.” He calls it an “unnecessary and unwarranted extension of power” to the RIAA that only gives them more reason to attack people who have no knowledge or power to fight against copyright claims.

Remittitur is good thing though, right? It allows the judge to overturn the damages awarded by the jury because the amount awarded was too high. That’s where you’re wrong says Nesson as he points out that remittitur in this case only subjects Tenenbaum to more trials instead of being able to fight against the unconstitutionality of what the RIAA is doing. He says that the RIAA is using remittitur over and over agains until the defendant is forced to settle.

All of this is a ploy by the RIAA and the DOJ to force people into settling without ever reaching the constitutional question. As proven time and time again, groups like the RIAA don’t want to take these things to court. Instead of being forced to answer questions about the constitutionality of their absurd claims that a single song costs them thousands in damages, they want to force defendants to settle in the lower courts.

The RIAA has stopped targeting individuals though, so maybe Tenenbaum should just settle. Nothing like this will happen again, right? Wrong says Nesson as he points out that other groups, especially porn studios, have taken up the RIAA’s old tactics. It would be in the nation’s best interest if the Supreme Court were to offer an opinion so that all current litigation can be laid to rest.

Nesson also points out that every copyright case that the RIAA uses to defend their right to sue citizens for absurd amounts of damages comes from the old 1909 copyright law. The updated law from 1976 makes it so that plaintiffs are only awarded what they truly lost instead of the ridiculous statutory damages.

The true crux of Nesson’s argument is in the third section though. Here is where he lays down the true motive behind the RIAA’s assault on individuals:

RIAA’s litigation assault on individual file-sharers, Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset among them, is procedurally unfair and profoundly unethical. It pits an industry against an individual and punishes the individual for what others have done and will do. It seeks to punish him beyond any rational measure of the damage he conceivably caused, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by him, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the internet, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using the internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future. The individual is to be grievously punished as an act of public education.

He also makes the excellent point that one man’s actions can not be made tantamount to the actions of million of file sharers around the world. It’s almost like the RIAA is punishing Tenenbaum for the millions of shared files going around the world at this very minute when in fact he only downloaded 23 songs.

Plaintiffs attempt to substitute the action of one individual for the actions of millions. They seek to leverage the damage attributable to all file sharing tojustify heinous punishments for one. Tenenbaum, acting as one individual, did not (and could not) cause the injuries the RIAA describes. Nor is he answerable for the amount of damages that they seek to collect from him. File sharing as a whole caused the injuries about which the RIAA complains. Had Tenenbaum never shared, the songs would have been shared and available nonetheless. Tenenbaum did not create filesharing and he was not in any way critical to its spread or its effects. It cannot be that he, individually, caused the destruction of the complete value of each of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. It was not Tenenbaum alone who reduced income and profits for the recording industry; it was not Tenenbaum who cost employees their jobs — it was the global millions engaged in filesharing that did all this

It’s a valid question that the Supreme Court needs to address. Of course, the RIAA has already found their solution – trying to block access to, or shutting down, sites that they see as a threat to their monopoly over creative works. It’s already proven that it doesn’t work so it’s only a matter of time before the RIAA starts going after dead people and grandmothers with settlement letters.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/charles-nesson-says-riaa-creating-urban-legend-around-copyright-2012-05/feed 1 Video Games Need More Warnings Says Congress http://www.webpronews.com/video-games-need-more-warnings-says-congress-2012-03 http://www.webpronews.com/video-games-need-more-warnings-says-congress-2012-03#comments Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:55:12 +0000 Zach Walton http://www.webpronews.com/?p=123377 After the Supreme Court ruling and a wide variety of other laws attempting to police video games getting thrown out, you would think the blokes in Congress would finally learn. H.R. 4204 proves they have not learned a thing.

Congressmen Joe Baca from California and Frank Wolf from Virginia introduced H.R. 4204 on Monday. What does the bill have to do with video games? They want games to be slapped with a sticker that says, “Warning: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

According to Game Politics, the creators of the bill are pushing this forward because they feel there is an ever increasing amount of evidence that links game violence to real-world violence. Let’s hear what Congressman Baca has to say:

“The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families and to consumers — to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products. They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility.”

You’re right, Congressman Baca, the game industry does have a responsibility to parents, families and consumers. That’s what the Entertainment Software Ratings Board is for. The ESRB rates games and puts that handy E-AO rating on the case so parents can make informed decisions about their game purchases.

The FTC does an annual review of the ESRB’s effectiveness as a ratings agency. Turns out a majority of parents (89 percent) are involved with the purchase of video games for their children with 87 percent of them aware of the rating system. That doesn’t sound like failing to “live up to this responsibility.” That sounds like a rating system that works and does its job well.

What does Congressman Wolf have to say then?

“Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents — and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”

With all due respect Congressman Wolf, don’t compare violent video games to smoking. We have years of scientific data that proves a direct link between smoking and death. There is no such proven correlation between violence in gaming and violence in the real world. In fact, violence among children and teens has decreased as video game popularity has increased.

The absolutely hilarious thing is that this bill would require all games, regardless of rating, to be slapped with this sticker. It’s like putting, “This product has been found to cause lung cancer” on a pack of candy cigarettes. It’s absolutely ridiculous and couldn’t be held up in a court of law.

Expect this bill to die alongside every other games bill that has crept up over the years. Until the ESRB stops being effective, and it wont anytime soon, these bills have no chance of passing.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/video-games-need-more-warnings-says-congress-2012-03/feed 0 Supreme Court To Decide If Tech Firms Can Be Responsible For Assisting In Human Rights Violations http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-tech-firm-human-rights-2012-02 http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-tech-firm-human-rights-2012-02#comments Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:10:45 +0000 Zach Walton http://www.webpronews.com/?p=105950 How do you feel about U.S. and European companies selling surveillance equipment to authoritarian regimes to better equip them in oppressing their people? Well, the Global Online Freedom Act that we reported on before would seek to combat this particular problem. Problem is that the bill in question has failed to pass multiple times in the past. What else can address this issue? The EFF may have the answer.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is reporting that there are now two pending cases in the U.S. right now that raise claims against Cisco. What claims, you ask? The company is accused of selling the Chinese government specially made surveillance tools that allow it to persecute democracy activists and those belonging to the Falun Gong religious minority.

While that sounds bad, this story isn’t so much about them, but two cases that are already before the U.S. Supreme Court right now. The two cases in question are Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Rojaub and they both deal with the question of whether or not a company can be held accountable for human rights violations.

EFF says that there is evidence pointing to domestic corporate involvement in various countries where massive human rights violations have occurred over the past year. They claim that political prisoners in Bahrain have said their captors read back to them text messages they sent that could have only been obtained using Western spy technologies.

Syria has been a hot ticket for the past few months and grew even hotter once it was revealed that Marie Colvin had been killed in the country while covering the carnage. It’s alleged that tracking equipment provided by Western companies is what led to her execution.

On the flip side of these atrocities, it appears that the surveillance business is doing better than ever. The EFF pegs the market for their devices at about $5 billion a year.

Both cases, Kiobel and Mohamad, will be argued tomorrow with a decision expected by late June. The key to this is whether or not corporations can be seen as individuals. There are already laws in place that convict individuals for assisting oppressive foreign regimes.

EFF is hoping that the decision made in Citizen’s United two years ago that said corporations are individuals will be applied here as well.

We here at WebProNews love technology and strive to report on all the benefits it brings to our daily lives. It’s also important to remember, however, that technology is a double-edged sword and can be abused in the wrong hands.

So, what do you think? Even if tech companies provided the tools that led to the death of people like Marie Colvin, do we hold the company or the people who used the technology in that way responsible? Let us know in the comments.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-tech-firm-human-rights-2012-02/feed 0 Jon Stewart Takes On Supreme Court Violent Video Game Ruling http://www.webpronews.com/jon-stewart-supreme-court-violent-video-game-ruling-2011-07 http://www.webpronews.com/jon-stewart-supreme-court-violent-video-game-ruling-2011-07#comments Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:39:29 +0000 Josh Wolford http://www.webpronews.com/?p=69944 The internet has been buzzing about the recent Supreme Court decision that said it was unconstitutional to restrict the sale of graphically violent video games to minors. In a 7-2 vote, the SCOTUS struck down a California State law that would fine retailers $1,000 for distributing the mature games to children.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion, argued that video games must be protected as free speech because of their status as art. This put them alongside things like books, film and music in the court’s eyes.

Another part of Scalia’s argument was that there was no precedent for the restriction of violence to children in the same way that there was a restriction to sexual imagery like pornography. The ruling basically said that it is OK to sell violent imagery to kids, but not sexual imagery.

This distinction has people talking, mostly about the hypocrisy of such a dichotomy. Why, in this country, do we demonize sex much more than violence? Are we a violent culture? Are our sexual sensibilities warped because of our puritanical beginnings? All of these questions were at the heart of Jon Stewart’s take on the SCOTUS ruling on last night’s episode of The Daily Show.

Talking over footage from a recent Mortal Kombat game where a woman is pulled apart at the groin and disemboweled, Stewart points out the strange nature of the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court determined seven to two that the State of California has no interest in restricting the sale of this game to children, but, if while being disemboweled this woman were to suffer perhaps a nip-slip – regulate away.

Stewart also debuts a new game for Wii that looks promising. Check it out below –

It seems as though people both agree and disagree with Stewart’s take on the SCOTUS decision. Check out these responses from Twitter –

@AnneMurata
Anne MurataSupreme Court #FAIL: It’s OK for minors to purchase graphically violent video games that disembowel women, but no sex vids? #Sick 1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

@JTonWNES
J.T. MurphyFor the record, I’m psychotically defensive of video games. Thus, one dumb statement can make even Jon Stewart forever dogshit in my eyes. 12 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

@JeremyDStanley
Jeremy StanleyWholly disagree with Jon Stewart’s interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling on video games. Has he heard of the ESRB? 13 hours ago via Tweetbot for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

@bobzuercher
Bob ZuercherDear John Stewart: if you don’t want your kids to have violent video games – don’t buy them. Simple. 2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

So what do you guys think about the SCOTUS ruling? Is it hypocritical to allow our kids violence but shield them from anything sexual? Let us know how you feel.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/jon-stewart-supreme-court-violent-video-game-ruling-2011-07/feed 10 Supreme Court Video Game Decision Gets Animated http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-video-game-decision-gets-animated-2011-06 http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-video-game-decision-gets-animated-2011-06#comments Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:20:26 +0000 Josh Wolford http://www.webpronews.com/?p=69686 Okay, let’s just say that Next Media Animation is a treasure of the interwebs.

The Taiwanese animation company’s timely video enactments of America’s top news have become staples of YouTube. The breadth of what they choose to cover is impressive. Just today they animated the New York gay marriage bill, Obama’s YouTube channel, and Lady Gaga news.

And then there’s this, which I can only describe as transcendent.

NMA has decided to give their interpretation of yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court decision about the sale of violent video games to minors. In that decision, the SCOTUS ruled a California state law prohibiting the sale of mature games to children unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the state law does not fall into line with the first amendment and that video games, like books and films, deserve freedom of speech protection. Not only is this a win for the video game industry, but also a win for first amendment advocates everywhere. Opponents of the SCOTUS ruling say that the games are obscene and the government should be allowed to regulate their distribution.

NMA’s take on the whole thing is worth watching for its use of the violence motif even during the Supreme Court hearing sequences. Add an American flag, some kids and Grand Theft Auto and this becomes gold.

They are also able to point out the strange disconnect that we, in America, have about sex and violence in a 60 second clip. One is okay, while the other is highly restricted. Swell commentary, NMA. Swell.

Check it out below –

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/supreme-court-video-game-decision-gets-animated-2011-06/feed 0