Denying the existence of violence against Palestinians, or the possibility of violence, is an example of anti-Palestinian racism that is as old as the claim that Palestinians are themselves an imagined people.
The violence done against Palestinians is not only a regular occurrence but unprovoked or extremely disproportional, and further it is constantly accused of not being factual.
In the all too recent case of the burning alive of 18 month old Ali Saad Dawabsheh I saw a mix of white and Jewish individuals denying it even happened, saying it wasn’t of consequence because Israelis are also killed, and most heinous of all saying that the Palestinian family killed their own son to make Jewish people look bad and that Arabs were monsters who could regularly be expected to commit that kind of blood libel.
It is important to understand the fear that is experienced by Jewish people when they face potential antisemitism, it is similar to the fear that Palestinians feel when they face the potential of anti-Palestinian racism, but it is important to remember that in attempting to protect yourself from one, it is never acceptable to perpetuate the other.
Blood libel has been used against the Jewish people for centuries to promote discrimination and harm against them as being acceptable, and fear of potential blood libel is reasonable, but to take that fear and use it as a weapon against Palestinians, and to promote anti-Palestinian racism whether intentional or not is never acceptable, and everyone needs to question themselves about whether or not they are using accusations of antisemitism and blood libel against Palestinians to promote violence against them.

Born Today, August 2, in 1905 the Marvelous Myrna Loy…

“Waiter, will you serve the nuts? I mean, will you serve the guests the nuts?” - Myrna Loy as Nora Charles in The Thin Man

Over 135 film and television roles, Silent and Sound, including Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, The Great Ziegfeld, Libeled Lady, The Best Years of Our Lives, The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer, Wife vs. Secretary, Cheaper by the Dozen, Belles on Their Toes, From the Terrace, Midnight Lace… and six Thin Man films with the wonderful William Powell…

In Palestine, religious and political leaders encourage attacking Jews.

- Jew-murderers are honored and praised.  Schools, parks and streets are named in their honor.

- Jew-murderers are paid a stipend based on how many Jews they killed.

- Antisemitic tropes and blood libels are regularly cycled in the media  (sometimes the Western media picks them up, but they’re usually too outrageous to try and sell them to the Western public).

For some reason, some people think that pointing this out is ‘racist’.

I’ve got news for you:

If you justify killing Jews, you’re antisemitic. 

If you justify antisemitic incitement, you’re antisemitic.

And worse of all, you think you’re helping the Palestinians by allowing antisemitic incitement to proliferate in their society?   The Jews will survive without your help, because we really have no other choice.   The Palestinians?  It will take them decades to get out of the hole that Arab and European nations have dug for them.

I feel like this week I’m mourning several people I don’t even know in person. I have to say though that seeing some Jewish bloggers reblogging photosets of people protesting settlers with like magen david’s with a baby doll covered in red paint….is so unsettling. Like that shit is so triggering as a Jew and I think that it goes deep into how as Jews in the diaspora we feel the constant need to assert our need for acceptance and humanity by identifying with oppressed people regardless of antisemitism that may come with that. I can’t do that. I don’t accept blood libel as a part of my identity in order to be accepted as a Jew, I can’t.

anonymous asked:

I'm sure that French interview with zayn is fake, no way he'd give his first (post-the sun) candid interview to some minor foreign paper and that it wouldn't be advertised for ages. And also it sounds 100% manufactured

Yeah, that would make sense to me too. 

I swear French magazines always seem to print some wild, made-up shit. They must have really lax libel laws. 

By the Time You Read this, I will Be a Criminal.

On October 3, 2012 (in my timezone, which would be early October 2 for most of you), I and millions of internet users in the Philippines have officially become criminals, liable to be jailed for up to 12 years.

I will understand if you don’t care. After all, the Philippines seems like such a small, inconsequential place for most to bother with. But if you believe in the right to free speech, the right to express yourself even when you’re in the minority, then please. Listen, understand. Help us spread the word, get others to condemn this act, for one simple reason: the restricting of one’s freedom to express ideas, thoughts, and opinions, for whatever reason, is wrong.

On October 3, a law called the Cybercrime Prevention Act takes into effect in the Philippines. While this sounds very right and proper, this particular law bans (among other things that should be rightfully banned, like hacking, child pornography, and the like) cybersex and online libel.

Well, you think. Online libel can’t be that bad.

Oh, it gets worse.

The Philippine definition of online libel is best summed up as “anything that can be misconstrued as criticism against any one individual, regardless of whether it is the truth or otherwise”.

Criticizing a corrupt politician constitutes online libel.

Complaining about inefficient administration constitutes online libel.

The problem with the Philippine definition is that online libel is so broad and unspecific that nearly anything you say can be counted as it, as long as it’s in opposition to what the ‘injured’ party says. The fact that it is so broad enables politicians or people in positions of power to exercise this law against people with dissenting opinions or to stamp out critics, regardless of whether the latter is in the right.

And libel is criminalized here. It’s not a civil suit. (This is a throwback to the days of America’s shaky colonial rule over the Philippines, where libel was criminalized to dissuade critics. This was in the 1940s. No one has thought of changing it since.) With regards to curtailing freedom of speech and content, it is in many ways similar to the previously squashed SOPA bill. Even worse, considering the jailtime.

Oh, wait. There’s more. You’re going to love this.

1. Liking, tweeting or resharing said 'online libel’ will also mean YOU get jailtime, too. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t write the original entry.

2. Posts, likes, and tweets are retroactive. That means they can jail you for posts, tweets, or likes you’ve made BEFORE the law went into effect, as far back as 2009.

3. Sarcasm still counts as libel.

4. The Department of Justice can block your access to the internet or to other computer files without a search warrant.

5. Convictions can mean up to twelve years of jail time or a P1,000,000 fine (about $20,000. Minimum wage is roughly $10 a day, but usually for jobs with a diploma. Actual wages can go 50% lower than stated, and that’s a GOOD wage for most of the poor).

6. Then they can charge you again for another law that bans printed libel, resulting in more jailtime. They do not apply double jeopardy in this case.

Cybersexing is a crime, too. Well, maybe child pornography can be avoided with this, right? Except child pornography has already been addressed by another law, it’s merely reaffirmed here. Owing to the Filipino lawmakers’ penchant for broadness, 'cybersex’ is literally anything that constitutes “The willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration.” Sounds a lot like just plain ol’ pornography, don’t you think? The Philippines, I might add, is an industry geared toward exporting labor. This means husbands / wives are forced to find work abroad for better pay, and do not return home for months.

How did this all start?

Once upon a time, there lived this Senator called Vicente “Tito” Sotto III. He was against the Reproductive Health bill, which if passed, would provide contraceptives and sex education to the poor to minimize overpopulation in the city and infant / maternal death rates.He is a strong backer of the Philippine Catholic Church, which considers contraceptives akin to “abortion” (despite abortion not being a part of the RH bill. It is, in fact, still illegal). The Church has a strong hold in this country, with over 80% Catholics, and funds many politicians.

In Sotto’s speech where he denounces this bill, several bloggers and internet users discovered that he plagiarized text from at least five different U.S. bloggers, including one named Sarah Pope, and from another who was pro-choice, but twisted in his speech to sound anti-choice. Both bloggers expressed dismay at being plagiarized, and he was called out for it. Sotto refused to apologize, and claimed he hadn’t plagiarized because 'she’s just a blogger’, despite his lawyer confirming that he, in fact, did.

In another speech, Sotto then plagiarized a portion of U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy’s speech, then claimed this was not the case, as the text had been converted to Filipino. Therefore, he argued, it can’t be plagiarized because Robert Kennedy can’t speak Filipino.

You might at this point begin to realize the quality of intelligence of some of the senators here.

Bloggers and internet users refused to back down. Sotto then issues a veiled threat regarding 'regulating blogging’. It was later revealed that he had inserted an online libel provision to the CyberCrime Prevention Act bill on January 24, 2012, that was not present during previous readings of the bill, which was duly passed with only one dissenting vote from a Senator Guingona.

President Noynoy Aquino then proceeded to sign it into law. The irony is not lost on many of us here. His father, Ninoy Aquino, was an advocate for freedom of speech during the 1970s martial law, and literally gave up his life in the process for it. Ninoy’s popularity is what ushered his relatively inexperienced son into office - only to sign what constitutes as E-Martial law instead.

A couple of senators later came forward to admit that they hadn’t read the amendment clearly, which makes it all the more frightening that they voted for something they didn’t even understand in the first place.

The Reproductive Health bill has been in limbo for nearly fourteen years in the Philippines. Same goes for the Freedom of Information Act, which would ensure government transparency. And yet this bill with its controversial clause was enacted into law within DAYS.

Facebook accounts turn black in protest, the law is trending on Reddit. Human rights groups have condemned this law. Anonymous Philippines has been active. Forbes has spoken out against it. But government here has been notorious for turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the protests of the people, instead pandering to cronies and corruption instead.

Sometimes I can’t help but admire friends living in Western countries. Vote republican or democrat, this labor party or that, but you are still free to express yourselves however you may. Living in a country where religion is the all-powerful, I can no longer say the same. Many people believe this is a ruse to take people’s attention away from the RH bill, and I don’t disagree.

But despite all this, many of my fellow Filipinos refuse to back down, and have resolved to continue posting, liking, tweeting, and resharing what they like, regardless of consequence. Because when you back down, they win. It’s as simple as that.

So for any of you people it will be a normal day at October 3 (or 2), 2012.

I, on the other hand, will be living in October 3, 1970, because this law has just set this nation’s progress at least forty years back.

Be thankful for the freedom that you have, and keep fighting for it.

That’s what we’re doing.

The Cybercrime Prevention Act law.

[ Image credit to Mr. Bawagan, who I will not link to here for reasons fairly obvious in this post.]

EDIT: Thank you for the reblogs! Some people have been asking how to help. Keep spreading the news, sign this petition, and inform your own politicians. The Philippines is a close ally of the United States, and may be influenced in that regard. It is horrifying to imagine how all this is a result of just one senator’s attempt at revenge, our Senate’s lack of understanding of what constitutes internet litigation, and a president’s inability to admit he is ever wrong, despite evidence to the contrary. The Philippine government do not often listen to its people, but they hate public shaming.

EDIT 2: This is just to clarify: Senator Sotto introduced the libel clause on January 24, but the bill itself was voted into law days after the plagiarism accusations against Sotto reached (one of) its peak (shortly after he was accused of plagiarizing from Robert Kennedy). I apologize for the confusion!
Can I Mention Brand Name Products in My Fiction?

by Mark Fowler

Writers frequently ask whether they can mention brand name products and services in their fiction.  The answer is “yes,” provided that you take some common sense precautions.  Indeed, if it were unlawful to include brand names in fiction, countless product references in Bret Easton Ellis’s novel Glamorama would have been expurgated, and David Foster Wallace could never have described in Infinite Jest an alternative present where large corporations purchase naming rights to the calendar years (e.g., “Year of the Whopper,” “Year of the Trial-Size Dove Bar,” “Year of the Perdue Wonderchicken,” “Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment,” and “Year of Glad”).

Read More →

These are the possibilities that can happen with the current Cybercrime Act. For just sharing or retweeting something online that contains criticisms - you can get jailed for 12 YEARS.

Let me just point out that we need a Cybercrime Prevention Act. However, the inclusion of these problematic provisions on cyber-libel will just curtail a fundamental principle of good governance: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.

The last time I checked, we were still a democracy—we want empowered citizens, not scared and passive ones.

—Sen. TG Guingona

*For those asking, I was outnumbered in the Senate vote to pass this law. The vote was 13-1.

Nocturne in Black and Gold – The Falling Rocket

Affronted by The Falling Rocket, John Ruskin accused Whistler of “flinging a pot of paint in the public’s face” in the Fors Clavigera. As a leading art critic of the Victorian era, Ruskin’s harsh critique of The Falling Rocket caused an uproar among owners of other Whistler works. Rapidly, it became shameful to have a Whistler piece, pushing the artist into greater financial difficulties. With his pride, finances, and the significance of his Nocturne at stake, Whistler sued Ruskin for libel in defence. In court, he asked the jury to not view it as a traditional painting, but instead as an artistic arrangement…However, his case was not helped when The Falling Rocket was accidentally presented to trial upside down. His explanation of the composition proved fruitless before the judge. The Ruskin vs. Whistler Trial, which took place on November 25 and 26, 1878, was disastrous for Whistler. While he did not lose, he only won a farthing. After all the court costs, he had no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Whistler was forced to pawn, sell, and mortgage everything he could get his hands on.
Conservative groups spread fake "news" stories targeting transgender students

There’s a strange trend going around of conservative and Christian organizations targeting transgender youth with highly-publicized false accusations, and it’s causing an immense amount of harm. 

At a high school in Colorado, a small group of parents complained earlier this month about a transgender student using the women’s restrooms. The school stood by the girl, saying she had every right to be there. Unsatisfied, the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, a group trying to repeal California’s recently-passed law extending rights to trans students, fabricated a story claiming the girl had been “inherently harassing students” in the bathroom just by being there.

In a similar story out of California last week, a Christian group spread a story about a trans student peeking over the tops of bathroom stalls. The story was later shown to have been fabricated by an angry, anti-transgender parent. 

The Colorado story was spread by conservative outlets like Fox News. Now, the girl has faced death threats and harassment from strangers across the nation – even though her classmates and the school district have asserted that these claims are completely false.

There appears to be a pattern of right-wing groups resorting to targeting trans children — minors — with false, libelous claims of harassment in an effort to stoke fear about the “risk” of granting these students equal access to basic facilities. In the Colorado case, the initial story publicized by the Pacific Justice Institute was picked up by conservative media outlets, including Fox News, some of which eventually published the transgender 16-year-old’s name. Responsible media outlets referred to the teen — who, the school confirmed, did not harass anyone — as Jane Doe, since she is a minor. Doe’s mothers have spoken openly about the intense psychological pressure their daughter was feeling after being targeted by right-wing activists halfway across the country.

These stories have been around for a while now, but they get more shocking every time we revisit them. GLSEN has been in touch with the Colorado student’s family and can help you send the girl a supportive message if you so choose. Above all, though, let this be a reminder that we have to stand up for one another at every opportunity. Nobody should have to go through this hell.

Hello O Vastest of Derps, hope you don’t mind a nifty lecture. I figured your followers might have it come in handy. The whole ‘he who fights monsters’ thing is never fun.

I am not a lawyer. But I went to school to be someone who writes that tricky thing they call news, and we had a very long couple lectures on what constituted libel. Because that is serious shit when you want to be a hard-boiled newspaper type. Some of this may vary depending on where you are but most of it will remain true regardless of exact lattitude and longitude.

Libel, Libelous Remarks and Other Forms Of Defamation

And Why You’re Fucked If You Try To Get Away With This

So, when you write something about someone that is considered to be damaging to their character or standing within the community and you cannot back it up with hard evidence (this is important) you are making a Libelous Remark. If you shout it out loud in public at the top of your teeeny tiny lungs, it’s Slander, but for all intents and purposes this is still DEFAMATION. Defamation doesn’t simply mean cursing at someone, it means that the lies (because the provable truth is legally never defamation) that you have uttered or written have been determined to have harmed a person’s standing within the community, their livelihood or otherwise harmed them. The first two are generally what people go after.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way let’s examine a theoretical. I write an unpleasant thing for instance, accusing Bob of being a horrible child molesting rapist, because that’s a thing you can do on the internet if you’re physically or legally incapable of finding more interesting things to occupy you, like comics. Bob can of course demand that I either prove that what I said is true, or admit that I’m a lying bastard and apologize. But let’s assume I don’t.

If I wrote that bob was a horrible child molesting rapist in a newspaper, and I could not prove it, I would likely be required to print what they call a “retraction” which is a formal adknowledgement of my scandalous wrongdoing and an admission that Bob is not in fact a child molesting rapist as I suggested and that I was totally wrong to say that about him. Not only would I have to print this retraction, I would have to print it in the same place the original words were printed. So if I put those lies about Bob on the front page, my retraction must also be on the front page. I can’t tuck it  away either. If it was in 20 pt bolded all caps the retraction must mirror that. If it appeared above the fold, the retraction will also appear above the fold.

It gets a little confusing if my newspaper is on the internet, but generally it means that I can’t just have an apology on the website somewhere. People have to be aware of it. They have to read it and know what a colossal fuck up I am. Generally I would also have to appease Bob (within reason, Bob isn’t allowed to just snub all attempts to make right the wrong-doing because see the next bit) and the official legal type Judge who at this point has likely made me print the retraction. Yes, at this point Bob has gone to a COURT OF LAW to settle this shit because calling someone a child molesting rapist is a really shitty thing to do and he deserves satisfaction over the matter. Sadly for Bob we do not live in the age where one could simply shoot the offending bullshit-spewer and be done with it.

Proving that you’ve defamed someone is as simple as taking a screenshot. Or a picture. Or having a woodcut made of the screen of your computer, though that’s taking it a little far. Basically if I can prove that you said terrible, unsubstantiated things about me, I can be on that faster than you can say “come at me bro”. There’s a few ways around it, particularly when you are a hard boiled newspaper type, but repeatedly calling Bob a child molesting rapist isn’t really covered by any of them.

Repeating defamatory remarks is also considered to be bad form, as is publishing them without checking your facts or sources, because you have not done your due dilligence and the law frowns on your lazy bullshit. In the event that the law cannot get to the person who originated the linguistic excrement you have been spouting, anonymity and leet haxxors be damned, your head will probably be considered an acceptable subsitute in either of those situations.

TL;DR Talking bullshit about people on the internet where everyone can see it, especially accusing them of crimes they have not committed, can get you taken to court if the person gets tired enough of your shit or simply thinks it would be hilarious to watch you finally get to use all that rope you’ve been eagerly spooling out.

The infamous “McLibel” pamphlet: Co-authored by a police officer

In the UK, the “McLibel” case, involving the not-super-flattering claims in the pamphlet above, was one of the country’s longest-running. (And although McDonald’s won, it was a black eye for the company because a court found that most of the claims in the pamphlet were true.) But here’s the fun part, which only surfaced this week: One of the authors of the pamphlet was an undercover police officer attempting the infiltrate the group that put out the flyer. Oh.

Why aren’t you angry, America?
I May Go To Prison For This (Oh Well)

I’m mad. Fuming, in fact. And if you’re online on a regular basis–which you probably are, unless you’re Tito Sotto, it seems–you’ve got to be up in arms as well. This Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is like a wolf in a very bad sheep costume, hiding behind a pretty name and a few lines of decent of legislation.

Keep reading

And the pressed, press on!

I just have to emphasize one more time…trolls keep proving every time they comment here and other blogs just how concerned they are.  The only reason to troll is fear.  When you are strong in your belief this is a non-issue, you just stick with like minded peeps…

With that out of the way, let’s get to it!

Kristen looks quite pregnant in that American Ultra still. I have no doubt she had a stunt double standing in for her during the more complicated scenes. I’ve heard people have been cropping the still, so no one can see the bump. It’s like they don’t want anyone to see what looks to be very true. Kristen was pregnant at the time American Ultra was filming. It’s obvious she was. Anyone who can’t see it must be blind. In the words of Neytiri, no one can teach them to see. - Sharky

LOL…sharky…I love this still.  I’ll be really curious to see how long this scene/shot actually lasts in the movie.

Wonderful pic ,full view on AU as an affirmation 2 what I truly believe. The air be be is so firm and we’ll developed, what will the jumpers come up with to discredit now. And the valet pics=just make me happy. Go RK always…cory4rk said:

Hey MN, looking at the 3 new stills from AU, it’s so obvious (to me,anyway) that she is pregnant. I know it’s a moot point, but it just makes me so damn happy every time it’s confirmed! Hope all is well with you, Eraina

I think these pictures are why the shiteaters are so hypersensitive right now.

Even their brains can’t quite process all of this so after a relatively quiet couple of weeks they came slithering out of their rock formations to share this discomfort.  

There was some mighty humorous shit they gave me to work with and here’s a smattering.

First, this little tidbit was shared with me from a peep that decided to go for a stroll on a toilet paper sight and she got this rare gem….

All I have to say is “Kristen…where’s my money?”

Sorry for Kristen who has to be paired up in a marriage let alone having two kids with a person like Rob. I can imagine your blog giving benefit for maintaining Rob’s image to his so called fans. He has nothing to complain to be said tied up w the amazing n awesome Kristen. However, poor Kristen, getting no benefit at all though she may not care, she did have something in the past w Rob so helping him in a fantasy world is the least she can do. I see Rob’s career falls, next is Dior not hire him

Bitter…party of one….Bitter?….

Somebody must have peed in your Cheerios!

Dear lord, this little ditty is getting old.  Rob and Kristen have now been married for almost 2 years.  And if they were looking for this to help Rob’s career wouldn’t they have made this information PUBLIC you sack of shit imbecile?  Rob’s career is doing just fine.  He represented Dior at The Met Gala this year and his next promo campaign has yet to even come out…so I wouldn’t be crowing about his contract coming to and end if I were you.  

I remember when everyone thought Kristen’s relationship with Chanel had ended and yet, her she is with TWO campaigns representing the 11.12 bag and their eyewear collection. Not to mention opening Chanel’s latest Haute Couture fashion show in Paris.

People did their damnedest to write off Kristen two years ago only for her to slap the in the face with her success.  I’ve little doubt that Rob’s turn is next!

def·a·ma·tion ˌdefəˈmāSH(ə)n/ noun the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel. “she sued him for defamation” synonyms: libel, slander, calumny, character assassination, vilification; More Translate defamation to Use over time for: defamation (They forgot to add your entire blog and the other blogs the spread the same untrue shit u do,as examples) I hope they sue ur ass soon😘😂

Dear Idiot…READ This 

You should anon…you really, really should!

First and foremost my darling…you can’t get sued for defamation when you are telling the truth.

But please tell me and the rest of my peeps what exactly is Defamatory/Libelous about my blog?  

Please tell me how I’m hurting either Rob or Kristen by stating the truth that they are married and they have two baby girls?  

How have I or anyone else that has shared this true information hurt either of their careers.  They both seem to be doing just fine if you ask me.  Rob’s had some bad luck lately, but not anything that doesn’t happen to actors all the time.

Please my dear…give me a few examples of the grounds under which I could be sued?  Feel free to send my exact post numbers that you would use to make your case. Let’s see if you can come up with any, since you were so bound and determined that I know the definition of defamation.  What’s funny is that you posted the definition but you STILL DON’T COMPREHEND WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS!

For argument’s sake, let’s say they do have kids. Judging from what they’ve been doing since last year, they’re pretty much the WORST parents ever. Do you honestly think their behaviour is normal for a couple of parents of two babies? Is this acceptable behaviour to you? Why don’t you discuss that? Because if this is how they behave as parents, their kids are doomed.

Please, oh please tell me what makes them such bad parents?  Do you have 24/7 surveillance on them?  Can you back up your claims?  This!  THIS COMMENT IS THE DEFINITIONS OF DEFAMATION/LIBEL!   You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim stating that they are the worst parents in the world.  Another asshole throwing Rob and Kristen under the bus when you don’t like the truth!

This is a statement with no basis in fact and could effect Rob and Kristen’s careers if anyone ever took your claim seriously.  And trust me anon, I’ve kept your message in my email inbox so if RK want to take action against you, they can.  Don’t think that just because you sent this message anonymously that you can’t be found!

But can I just say that I love the crack in your armor.  The fact that you even came to me with this message tells me that you know deep down that what I say is true.  And if I’m right you have to lash out on someone and the only ppl left for you to lash out on are Rob and Kristen.

It’s sad that you can’t just be happy for them…

This is you anon to a fucking T!

I’ve been on Twitter I know not a good place to be but I know that you know a lot about our favorite couple I just don’t get the he’s on drugs and we need to save him deal plus some are saying he was having sex in public with you know who where is all of this crap coming from anyway?! It’s insane to even think can you imagine peeps are buying all of this how sad is that and that one account called [twitter account name redacted] have you read this stuff check it out she’s the 1 who saying he’s on drugs..

Again…this is DEFAMATION/LIBEL.  This is information being spread by bitter hags that know nothing and are using pictures to base their accusations on!  They have no proof of what they say and yet they keep saying it.

I personally hope, though I know it’s futile, that RK sue this person that runs this account along with anyone following it.  If you are following this account you are no better than then person that is running it.  You are tacitly promoting it by following it.  The accounts you follow on twitter can be seen by your followers and by following it you are telling your followers that this is a legit account and one that they should follow too.

This post is brought to you by:

Shh….stefan…we like the quiet…but it’s so quiet I think I can hear:


Two adorable Ninjas

And their two wee little ninjas…