Mar 3
Lil present for a friend ❤️
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Spain
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from Russia
seen from Kyrgyzstan
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from India
seen from Russia
seen from Türkiye
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Ukraine
Lil present for a friend ❤️
Im that type of guy who would rather look at a fashion magazine instead of porn magazines because I want to see women smile with happiness not smile of lust and desire.
Lone wolf
The Filipino Freedom of Speech
It's stipulated somewhere in the Philippine Constitution that one of the basic rights or freedom of a person is the freedom of speech. One of the rights that we tend to overuse as an excuse to basically say anything our polluted minds could generate. I do not question the practice of saying what one wants, however, I do question its extent. How far does one have to go to make this freedom amended? How many libel cases should be filed before the freedom of speech is cut down to mere freedom of saying what is true and acceptable and not what one thinks is true? But then again, as I said on an earlier article, what is the truth? How many bullies that use insulting words should surface for this overrated right of expression to be controlled? Oh wait, I hear people arguing with me. Martial Law? Human Rights violation? That's your argument? Oh come on. Get real. Me wanting the freedom of speech controlled is me exercising MY freedom of speech. Call me a hypocrite, but then, what do I call you? Controlling a person's freedom of speech is not the same as putting duct tape on the person's mouth. It's merely teaching him/her what to or not to say. When a certain politician from the south raised his middle finger on all those motherf*****s, many people squirmed and badmouthed him. Why? Isn't that part of freedom of expression? Isn't that what people advocating human rights was fighting for? Now your counterargument is probably along the lines of "he's a politician and should be a good example to his constituents". Why? He's (still) human. So, human rights (still) apply to him. Why should being a politician limit his rights? Another one, those bullies on social networking sites. People hate them especially those that they bully. They can't physically harm you through the internet so they use words. To their defense, they are ONLY practicing their freedom of expression. But why do people condemn them? Easy, because their words hurt. Their use of their freedom damage other people. That is why I say, control yourselves people. If you have nothing good to say, then shut the f*** up! A certain writer once said, "I do not agree with what you are saying but will defend to the death your right to say it!". It defeats my point in this article, but I will include it anyway since she is right. I support your right to say anything but I'll be damned if I agree to everything you would say. For those who are against the cybercrime law, you have the right to express your disdain with the said law but can you please express it without violence. For those pro cybercrime law who are not politicians (if anyone of you exists), well, keep supporting it just don't run for politics cause I assure you, you're not going to win. Again, I went around the bush on this one making a lot of points along the way. So what is the real point of this article? Nothing. I'm just practicing my freedom of speech.