Principles for Amazon (and other?) censorship

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:

Focus on whether the merchandise contributes to further understanding, one way or another, rather than whether it might embody evil.


This principle runs counter to how the world of social media works, I realize. “Cancel culture” tends to issue decisions based on the worst aspects of a product, writer or public figure, because that is what is endlessly circulated and condemned. But there is another way of thinking about the problem — namely, by focusing on the positive.

It is still possible, for example, to buy Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” on Amazon, either through third-party merchants or Amazon itself. That book is more offensive than an Auschwitz bottle opener, as it directly calls for the extermination of the Jews and the conquest of Europe, and it probably still inspires neo-Nazis today. Nonetheless, I hope “Mein Kampf” continues to be for sale.

For all of its evil, “Mein Kampf” is an essential document for understanding the rise of Nazism and Hitler. As such, it should be allowed in spite of its potential downside. There is both intrinsic and utilitarian value in maximizing public access to as much knowledge as possible.

In contrast, it is hard to argue that an Auschwitz-themed mouse pad has anything positive to offer, whether to our historical knowledge or otherwise. At best, it is an act of obnoxious trolling and thus it was appropriate for Amazon to take it down.

It is fine to watch Leni Riefenstahl and listen to Richard Strauss, for instance.  But most private platforms — if they can — should ban sheer trolls.


This comment section is always full of trolls.

Sort of the way Amazon’s site is now infested with a tsunami of counterfeit or defective goods and bogus reviews?

I think all censorship is a mistake and a slippery slope to tyranny.

Because blocking counterfeit products and fake reviews is a war on Trump supporters and white male Christian nationalists of any nation?

Because blocking anything is still one person or group taking power over another person or group. It is a misuse of power.

Maybe so, but what if Tyler is the one who is trolling us? If people what to buy these offensive trinkets, why should Amazon be the one policing this behavior?

Because one should not be complicit. But as long as Amazon makes a buck, who cares, right?!

+1, good post Tyler.

There is room for pragmatic decision making.

I wonder whether the response would have been different if on the products had been the phrase "Never Forget".

Historically, Americans were more concerned government censorship, mostly because private censorship was ineffective. That is no longer true though.

50% of all private book purchases in America come through Amazon. 25% more go to libraries, mostly based on patron requests, and those library patrons likely use Amazon to get the publishing info they give to their library. In truth, Amazon banning a book, is probably more effective than a government ban. And Amazon IS banning books based on their content -- just ask UK politician Tony Robinson. (And many others, that one just came to mind.)

That's where your front-door analogy breaks down. If I close my front door to someone, there are lots of other doors for him to bang on. If Amazon bans your book, you're stuck. Your book may as well not exist.

If you value the free exchange of ideas, no one (public or private) should hold that kind of power.

I am not American, but if Amazon bans a book, aren't there many other stores you can buy it from?
Has it ever happened that a book by Amazon was banned and became unavailable to those who wanted it?

That's a great proposed standard for Twitter, but the uber-PC @jack seems to relish his role as an enforcer of cancel culture.

The positive thing about the Auschwitz mousepad is that the people who buy it find it amusing and get a bit of utility from it... this is the principal positive thing about most things sold on Amazon.

It is hard to see what harm the Auschwitz mousepad could do. People who don’t like it don’t have to buy or even view it. No one on the margin is going to be converted to Nazism because of it, and even if people were converted to Nazism, they would have no chance of taking power in any country today to implement Nazi atrocities.

I would ban products with the potential to cause tangible harm to people other than the buyer, not products that are merely offensive. By this standard, the case for banning books like Mein Kampf that have a proven track record of persuading people to do bad things is stronger than the case for banning offensive but harmless mousepads, although I would not ban either item.

True, China's tyranny is quite capable putting Uighurs in concentration camps without any inspiration from an Auschwitz mousepad or having read Mein Kampf.

Ruh roh. Amazon doesn't have any Chinese products for sale on their website, do they?

I'm surprised they don't send them to us(maybe they do). They better hurry if they're coming(of course they are), if they want to beat the 10
million Venezuelans on their way. At least they(the Uighurs) won't speak Spanish.

The Holocaust victims were God's Chosen People TM. Uighurs are just a bunch of Central Asian Muslim barbarians.

Three straight blog posts about tech, this one about the dark side. The boy wonders in tech can make Mein Kampf a best seller, just like they can make Alex Jones the purveyor of truth. But regulating ignorance via censorship just elevates the status of Alex Jones. I've commented many times that the Russians aren't responsible for the ignorance of American voters, the American voters are responsible for their own ignorance. While it's true that the ignorance of American voters risks the death of the American experiment, censorship would be the death of the American experiment.

I could not disagree more wholeheartedly. It is substitutive/subjective censorship moving in the opposite direction. The Auschwitz bottle-opener is as much free-speech and expression as Mein Kampf. You can buy porn on Amazon and that's because - like the standard - 'people know it when they see it'.

The problem isn't 'prurience' or lack of focus on the positive, it is 'cancel culture' itself. Cancelling things because of focus on the positive vs. the negative is still cancel culture.

I'd like to give an example of something people think highly offensive - worthy of cancel culture - but that has enhanced my life tremendously.

Jon Norman's Gor series of novels. As a traveler from the distant Nile past I and my wife Nefertiti have been having trouble adjusting to modern life and marital difficulties have cropped up. After reading Gor I realized that reducing her to a state of sexual servitude was the answer. According to the rules this had to be done against her will but, by Horus, she enjoyed it! Our lives have never been better!

One of Nefertiti's friends said this book is evil and supports the objectification of women and serves no useful purpose except to promote rape of slave-girls. But we have found it to be useful and informative and it has genuinely made our lives better.

I ask you. Does Gor serve a no purpose? None at all? Is the mere idea it espouses worthy of its lack of access for my purchase on Amazon?

Oh well, I guess I'll just buy Mein Kampf.

So it is OK to be a Nazi as long as one is talented or historically relevant.

It is also OK to be a communist as long as one is untalented.

I will be nice and ignore this excellent set-up.

Ok ok ok I'll be nice too and include historically relevant.

So it is now OK to be a Nazi and a communist and be historically relevant.

I guess there are good people on both sides, communism and nazism.

The dividing line between and evil cuts through every human being

I didn't follow the Amazon link, but suppose it links to the book to which I think it links... and then suppose that MR gets a tiny, tiny fraction of a cent of any sales that come from following the link... if it were my blog, I might consider removing the link...

Even better, it's got 3.5 stars on Amazon. Seems about fair.

"Based on your viewing history, you might also like..."

Hitler, but not impeachment. Got it.

(Some of you might think this unduly harsh, but I think it's a fair social critique. These new media, their participants, and their gatekeepers shape things by what's allowed but also by what is simply ignored. In some cases saying a thing (or selling a bottle opener) is evil. In others, ignoring a thing is evil as well.)

John Stuart Mill, 1867: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

Amazon is banning books on impeachment?

Are you really such a literalist, or do you see no parallels?

It looks to me like the rational right has decided to be silent on impeachment.

Is rational silence ever immoral?

Yes, I think it can be. Especially if say you are implicitly counting on immoral behavior of your representatives in Congress at the same time.

I consider myself a rational person. And I lean right of center.

Illegal behavior should always be spoken out against. You're right. I would support the impeachment right here right now if the President had done something illegal and that evidence was presented immediately to congress. Immoral behavior is subjective. I will not speak out against behavior that others classify as 'immoral' but I classify as antagonistic, not immoral.

Present me evidence and I will support impeaching Trump.

The case at hand is attempted bribery. It is well accepted. The "defense" that failed crimes are not crimes has no legal standing. The rational right should not deal in such stuff.

Several more, with campaign violations, obstruction of justice, and self-dealing. Again there are no reputations just conspiracies of silence.

That should have been a refutations not reputations.

The case for quid pro quo has evaporated in case you haven't been paying attention. It evaporated at the hearings. There was no evidence to produce when asked to produce it. Turley and other attorneys are saying as much in unison across the web. There is no conspiracy of silence, but there is a conspiracy of noise. You're in it.

Conspiracies of silence? What are you even on about today. It’s wall to wall coverage and has been for months.

Within a week or so Trump will be impeached, and the trial will commence in earnest in January.

There’s nothing remotely interesting to say about it until the real show starts in the Senate.

Agree. He's definitely getting impeached. The Democrats couldn't not impeach him at this point. So everyone's waiting until this gets ot the Senate to start commenting.

Also, members of the right who might consider defecting and joining the pro-impeachment camp are waiting to make sure that actually happens. Once it gets to the Senate, Republicans may start wondering if they wouldn't really have Pence as President.

The problem with impeaching Orange Man to get to Pence is that you've now opened the door to remove him as well.

Pence is an utterly unremarkable conservative but as President, especially with the precedent of politically-motivated impeachment, he's a worse-than-Hitler religious fanatic who's oppressing the left every day and making them live in dystopian fear even worse than those movies they watched. We can't afford... No, the entire planet can't afford to have even one minute of a Pence administration. That's why we would be justified in using the brave whistleblowers of the intelligence community to find evidence of his corrupt dealings with [to be announced] and continue until we get a respectable Democrat in office, so once again it will be business as usual.

Of course, this is far from an unintended consequence, it's in fact exactly what Romney and the other professional losers want.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's gonna impeach Pence. They're not that crazy, and he'd only be in office until the next election, after which he'd either be elected, or not.

There's an election in 11 months right now, it's not stopping anyone.

That's because Trump is obviously not the same as the others

Republican's might convict if there was a decent case. But this is a marginal charge that's primarily political in scope.

This is what Trump said:
"Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. ...The other thing, There's a lot of. talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.."

The prosecutor involved had investigated the company that Biden's son was being paid $50K a month to work at. Hunter Biden had no particular attribute that would make him worth that kind of money, except for being the Vice President's son.

Here is what Biden had said earlier when he bragged about it:

"And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him. I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

Trump had an obvious conflict of interest here. But Biden also had a conflict of interest in this issue. There's no way the Senate will convict even if a lot of Republican's don't like Trump.

What the hell are you talking about, the impeachable offense is withholding congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine in order to coerce them into investigating Joe Biden on your behalf.

Please, that was a perfect phone call.

OK, it wasn't, and getting foreign government involved in American elections is exactly one of the most dangerous things the framers of our Constitution tried to prevent from happening, but nothing lasts forever.

Yes, and it's contrasted with withholding congressionally mandated aid to the Ukraine in order to fire the prosecutor who investigated the company your son worked for and who was paid far, far more than his abilities would indicate.

Hazel, have you ever looked at Hunter Biden's work history.

"In May 2013, Biden's application for a limited duty position in the U.S. Navy Reserve was approved. He received an age-related waiver and a waiver due to a past drug-related incident, and was sworn in as a direct commission officer.Joe Biden administered his commissioning oath in a White House ceremony.

The following month, Biden tested positive for cocaine during a urinalysis test and was subsequently discharged. "

"In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mykola Zlochevsky faced a money laundering investigation, and his company Burisma Holdings, the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine, assembled a "high-profile international board" in response. ... in April 2014 Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019, receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months."

In less than a year, Hunter Biden went from working in the Naval reserve as an LDO, (Making $50K a year) to getting hired by a dodgy company making $50K a month.

I’m waiting for the Senate trial to make up my mind as to where the truth lies....but..

My gut instinct says Hunter Biden was hired as a board member by Burisma in an attempt to assuage investors that he would give the company top cover from US anticorruption efforts.

My gut instinct also tells me that Trump asked for an investigation into the matter because he smelled blood in the water in the form of Hunter Biden. Anticorruption in general was a pretense to very specific corruption.

I also doubt Joe Biden threatened to cut off aid to protect his son specifically, it doesn’t line up with the fact that the prosecutor was knee deep in corruption. Still, we should hear from the prosecutor under oath. That testimony and Hunter’s bank records/credit card expenditures will paint a picture of the extent of real corruption.

However, I do believe Joe Biden intervened to prevent Hunter from receiving an Other than Honorable Discharge, which following regulation he should have received, in addition to being formally disbarred as a lawyer.

In the interest of finding the truth I’m confident anonymous and indeed all Democrats will join me in demanding that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and the Ukrainian prosecutor testify under oath in the Senate trial.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant"


Alas, Biden emphatically refused to testify in a potential Senate trial today. It seems he is too busy calling his future constituents fat and challenging them to fights to clear his and his son's good name by providing the truth.

TDS is not rational, and you are never silent about your affliction as you use virtually every opportunity to derail the thread.

Well confirmation bias is a bitch, especially when you were right. This is as bad as I warned, and worse. The great tragedy is that not enough people in this country did pay attention.

And too many are partisan in this sense:

"Well confirmation bias is a bitch, especially when you were right."

Confirmation bias means you always think you are right and can always ignore the evidence that says otherwise.

"And too many are partisan in this sense:"

Agreed. That guy, Tom Nichols, is a pure partisan nutter that assumes the worst possible motives from his opponents. It is way too common.

You know what? You guys are undermining my faith that there is actually a rational right. Of course as I say perhaps they are just the ones smart enough to stay quiet.

Yep, that's a classic anonymouse response. Instead of making a counterpoint you just go with an ad hominem attack.

You: "That guy, Tom Nichols, is a pure partisan nutter that assumes the worst possible motives from his opponents."

You, twelve minutes later: "OMG, a personal attack!"

Nichols isn’t really partisan in the classic sense, he pretty much just hates everyone.

Here’s his take on the current Democratic Party:

“torn between totalitarian instincts on one side and complete political malpractice on the other”

That being said, anonymous literally opened the thread by denouncing anyone who doesn’t agree with his politics as immoral.

So come on anonymous, pot meet kettle. You resort to personal attacks in every comments section.

Not 24 hours ago you accused Hazel Meade of murdering a 16 year old.

Confirmed: In a post about Amazon and censorship, anonymous derails the thread for the zillionth time with talk about impeachment.

When this is finally written as an opera, the Ten To Fifteen Flushes Aria will be epic.

You’re not remotely as clever as you think you are.

Keep calm and Troll On I suppose.

Let me guess what’s next: you accuse more random internet commenters of murdering children. Although, erroneously accusing random strangers of killing children is such a Boomer meme...

OK Boomer.

Basically, Tyler raises sins of commission, and I raise sins of omission. Standard Sunday School stuff.

You do realize it’s on the front page of every periodical in this country, not to mention a large chunk of international periodicals. Every day.

The omission exists literally only in your mind.

I draw the line at bomb making kits and assembly instructions.

Short of that, bad ideas I can fight with words and reason.

You may be able to, but apparently he left can't. Hence the need for unpersoning and memory-holing, which the tech giants are all too happy to facilitate to give themselves and their customers that dopamine hit.


Well said.

To Shark Lasers, don’t confuse Twitter/Vox with everyone to the left of Limbaugh. The internet is a distorted looking glass through which to view the world.

That you view it as the tail wagging the dog doesn't mean it's not happening.

Decades ago my local little library branch had on its shelves Che Guevera's book on how to carry out guerrilla warfare. It was surprisingly (to me at least) free of ideological cant and instead focused on instructions such as how to convert a shotgun into a grenade launcher or dig a tank trap.

I'm guessing though that in a post-9/11 world, that book is no longer on that library's shelves.

Tyler, like most other "thought leaders" on the wishy-washy right, fails to acknowledge that not everyone, least of all anyone on the progressive left, shares his subjective reasoning.

I could, with the same standard of proof, argue that Tyler's books, available on Amazon, have nothing "positive to offer". I get enough rabble roused, poof, they're gone. You may see the value of his books differently, but that's the problem: it depends on personal inclination.

We don't live in a world of agree-to-disagree, live-and-let-live anymore. We live in a world where our cultural overlords and the leftist NPCs who follow them need to frame everything as good versus evil to keep their worldview intact. Tyler may believe, in permitting them to purge the evil, that he's safely on the good side. But that depends wholly on what's convenient to maintain the narrative.

Much of the reason we're in this mess to begin with is because our non-leftist intellectual class is unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves or defend their alleged principles against the progressive-led pogrom. At some point you have to wonder if it's intentional on their part.

What in the world are you talking about? The closest thing we have to “cultural overlords” are the conservatives who control 2.5 out of 3 branches of government. Tech companies aren’t “cultural overlords”; they are out to make money and don’t give a whit about what your culture is. Amazon hasn’t banned any books, and even if it did, it wouldn’t be a big deal because there are plenty of other places to buy books.

Liberals control the MSM, public education, the universities, celebrity cultures, and they set the norms of acceptable thought in this country.

If they are just out to make money, why ban political advertising? Why demonetize and delete video channels? Why delete product listings? Are they worried about negative publicity? And if so, from whom?

"Much of the reason we're in this mess to begin with is because our non-leftist intellectual class is unable or unwilling to stand up for themselves or defend their alleged principles against the progressive-led pogrom"

Yeah, pogrom. You know, just like the one's where they actually terrorized and murdered Jews. The far-right's ability to pity itself and be callous never ceases to amaze me.

"At some point you have to wonder if it's intentional on their part."

Evidently it is all part of the Jewish conspiration we all need Auschwitz-themed mouse pads to defeat.

So is this like playing the race card or...? All this talk I hear about BDS and the plight of the Palestinians must be an invention of the far-right. Not to mention the daily comparisons of Orange Man to Hitler. You need to come up with an actual rebuttal instead of expecting your good-guy buzzwords to do it for you.

The nationalist socialist party is far right? lol.

If you're going to ban anything that offends any significant number of people, you will have a very bland and angry society full of many, busy bureaucrats.
The solution to bad speech isn't less speech, it's better speech.

Meh. Suffice to say, there are many books espousing horrific views that Tyler would be more than happy to ban. Not impressed with the Godwin-esque virtue signalling here.

This story leaves out a crucial piece of information: the products adorned with Auschwitz photos are clearly generated by an algorithm that slaps popular stock photos on a collection of products and posts pictures of them on Amazon. The market determines if anyone will ever actually order one of these and consequently whether such a product will ever be created. Nobody made a conscious decision to make an Auschwitz mousepad, and it's likely that (at least before this controversy cause some people to order it ironically) the product has never actually existed as anything than a picture in an automatically-generated catalogue.

The discourse around this reminds me of the way pundits used to spark moral panics about computers, the Internet, video games etc:

"These new computers let you print out colour pictures of the Holocaust!"

"The Internet lets you post nude photos of yourself for anyone to download!"

"In this video game, you can choose to run around and murder everyone with a gun!"

All true statements, all irrelevant to the moral value of the technology in question. This tempest in a teapot is no different. "Print-on-demand vendors on Amazon will let you put Auschwitz on a coffee mug!" Yes, but that would be a choice that YOU are making, not the vendors.

Focus on whether the merchandise contributes to further understanding .... it is an act of obnoxious trolling and thus it was appropriate ...

I am surprised you would give this advice. There is no "merchandise" - only the marriage of a database of images with a collection of cheap things that can be printed on. The combinations are many - this would not be a rational use of time, and indeed would probably only make temporary collector's items of the absurdities that might be thus publicized.

Try it - you can order up a Frederic Bastiat snowflake ornament, or a pair of Adam Smith flip flops.

This is not something that bears thinking about.

This is a good column, but let’s dig in on this topic.

- Instead of “Mein Kampf” (currently, sold on Amazon), suppose we use a more realistic example — Kevin McDonald’s “Culture of Critique” (banned on amazon). McDonald’s recent antisemitism casts a shadow over this book, but the book is valuable scholarship, if for no other reason than the extensive bibliography. Book’s thesis: Jewish nepotism has enabled left-leaning, anti-gentile Jewish intellectuals to corner fields in the humanities and social sciences throughout the 20th century. The book presents a strong case, but has also ended up on the alt-right’s required reading list. Should this be banned, considering McDonald’s recent statements (granted, he is older, 75)?

- Instead of concentration camp mousepads, how about “sexy nun” Halloween costumes? I guess these will need to go as well?

- Additionally, the column seems to lay the blame mostly on Amazon, as opposed to Cancel Culture itself. Cancel Culture is organized mostly by younger Millennial / GenX Jews, whose beliefs on free speech is orthogonal to Jews from the 1960’s. It’s fairly striking, with the ACLU's shift being a good example. Any theories on this?

'Any theories on this?'

That this comment section would be a good place to organize the goyim liberation front?

It's curious in any case that a market-oriented economist would advise a private corporation to take action against any third party willing to sell products on its website. Since they are so... deplorable, it seems like something the free market would solve fairly quickly.

If you want to read Mein Kampf you can find a copy of it in most public libraries.

We Americans claim to be a free people, yet Amazon thinks we need to be protected against bad books? Even if one acknowledges that there may be some positives in banning some things, the downsides seem much greater.

And it won't stop at books: how long before clothing or jewelry is restricted or banned for 'cultural appropriation'?

Maybe if you want to sell Nazi books you should open a bookstore. Amazon doesn't have to sell Nazi books just because you want it.

One wonders how the left would react to the opening of a mutti-und-vater Nazi bookstore somewhere. Probably hail it as a paragon of freedom, no doubt.

Seems as if maybe one commenter in ten read the actual column.

Anyone up for another group showing of Triumph of the Will? Is it on Amazon Prime?

And if not , if this evidence of cancel culture?

In a free country you can buy and sell Auschwitz-themed mouse pads and Mao tee shirts.

Cancel culture would fit perfectly in the countries that would be represented.

Do these holier than thou scolds spend all their days searching for items that offend them? Do they need treatment?

It's not the book itself that is most concerning. It's the culture into which the book is published. Our culture seems less able to view the book as an example of evil. A growing number of people seem disturbingly ready to follow its dictates. Suppressing the book won't fix our culture.

Well, I better rush out and buy up a bunch of those sleeveless confedate flag t-shirts that I like.

I like to buy the ones with sleeves, then cut them off myself to add my own personal touch. Got that from Pinterest.

You get an extra set of wash rags for the pickup that way. Score!

What's wrong with the libel laws?

Mein Kampf most definitely does not call for the extermination of the Jews. I have read Mein Kamp very carefully, took notes on it, and studied my notes. At no point, does Hitler call for the extermination of any ethnicity in that book. For sure, he does talk about Jews in a negative light, but there is little discussion as to what we should do about the Jewish problem. My copy of Mein Kampf is approximately 680 pages. Pages 300 through 327 discuss the Jewish issue, so it is given fairly extensive coverage, but there is no discussion of extermination. This leads me to suspect that the author of this blog entry has not read Hitler's first book.

That is correct. Hitler discussed exterminating the Jews long before he came to power, but not in Mein Kampf.

listen to Richard Strauss

Mark Twain: Strauss is better than he sounds

Sounds like a Straussian reading.

The disclaimer at the bottom of the article provides a nice poke at those anti-billionaire people: "To be clear, my conflicts of interest in any Amazon-related column are massive. Not only does Amazon sell my books, but it also receives thousands of dollars of my business each year, it helps shape the future and fiscal future of my place of employment and affects just about every facet of my daily life."

'it helps shape the future and fiscal future of my place of employment'

And apparently, the anti-privatization people - who knew that Amazon wants to buy GMU?

I think Richard Strauss may have gotten a bad rap. He took a position with the Nazi government, but he was regarded skeptically by the Nazis because he associated closely with Jews, including his coauthor Stefan Zweig, and had a Jewish daughter-in-law. He was cleared of any wrongdoing by a war crimes tribunal.

Still, his music sounds terrible. He should have to listen to Mozart and Beethoven all day as punishment.

What are TC's principles for MR censorship?

Comments for this post are closed