|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did.
That's what I mean by groveling.
|
On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling.
In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start.
|
Northern Ireland24425 Posts
Is Twitter attaching these notices specifically to Trump’s posts or is that a wider policy they’re rolling out?
If the latter to quote the dearly departed Tychus Findlay, hell its about time.
Doesn’t massively fix anything but any step in stemming the tide of absolute bollocks that can be posted unchallenged is something, albeit about a decade too late.
|
It's a wider policy. They've done it already to some but they're just now going after trump. It won't matter to his base, of course.
|
On May 28 2020 08:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling. In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start.
Nor do I, I don't think Jack gives a damn about what Trump tweets personally. My point was that Twitter will predictably back down to Trump. I'd also caution against falling back into the comfortable and repeatedly disproved notion that the system has checks that would stop him.
On May 28 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king
I highly recommend countries with governments dependent on "norms" take this as a learning moment and put the norms on the books as laws (for whatever they're worth).
|
Twitter dude strikes me as the type who realizes he totally doesn't need any more money. I would like to see him stay the course and let it all burn down if that's what it takes. He's a billionaire either way.
|
|
|
I don't think it matters how blatantly obvious it may be, sadly. His supporters have already proven that they'll ignore anything negative he does.
|
On May 28 2020 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I don't think it matters how blatantly obvious it may be, sadly. His supporters have already proven that they'll ignore anything negative he does.
I don't think they ignore it, I think they support it (some more shamefully/shamelessly than others). But they make the same two-party lesser evil calculation Democrats do with different metrics.
|
where exactly are the conservatives who will defend Twitters right to regulate their own platform as they see fit, and how is it conservative to compel twitter, a private business, to host certain forms of speech
|
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad.
|
I'm guessing it's more of a "you can't tell me what to do" thing. For them mask is symbol of compliance to some kind of malicious force seeking to control. I think many just react like animals and can barely even think. Monkey see monkey do.
|
Being against masks is extremely counterproductive. Crabs in a bucket and all that.
The main reason that Japan’s health system isn’t filled with thousands of dying people is likely due to everyone wearing a mask and social distancing. This is despite being behind the curve when it comes to discouraging the local population from smoking, having the oldest population on average, extremely high population densities in major cities, some of the busiest public transport routes in the world and a government that can’t legally enforce a lockdown.
Refusing to not wear a mask during this pandemic is like not wearing a seatbelt. People who refuse to do so cite their freedoms being removed but the reality is that it’s a small thing to do to prevent yourself from being a weapon. It’s an admission that you value some tiny insignificant personal comfort over potentially killing someone when an accident happens.
|
|
|
On May 28 2020 15:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Being weirdly insecure about wearing masks is definitely getting added to the "dumb shit social conservatism thought was ok"
So far we've got:
- slavery is good
- women shouldn't vote
- black people shouldn't vote
- interracial marriage is bad
- gay marriage is bad
- wearing a mask is bad
If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I would not have guessed it. It's just amazing. I love that the party that claims to champion masculinity is so wildly insecure. It is perfect. I can't imagine how awful my life would be if I was basically hanging on by a thread like that. Imagine putting on a mask and suddenly having this wave of self conscious feelings. That's awful. The culture that birthed that is so sad.
Somehow shoehorning slavery into a discussion about wearing a mask.Amazing.
I've only heard about these Minneapolis protests on the radio but I sure hope those several thousand folk are practicing social distancing and wearing a mask.
|
On May 28 2020 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 08:30 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 08:20 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. That's what I mean by groveling. In that case, sure, but I don’t think Trump threatening legal action has much to do with it. It was a pretty weak idea from the start. Nor do I, I don't think Jack gives a damn about what Trump tweets personally. My point was that Twitter will predictably back down to Trump. I'd also caution against falling back into the comfortable and repeatedly disproved notion that the system has checks that would stop him. Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd?
edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again.
+ Show Spoiler +
To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today.
Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress.
The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security.
These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.
But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king I highly recommend countries with governments dependent on "norms" take this as a learning moment and put the norms on the books as laws (for whatever they're worth). Twitter isn't just doing this for America, maybe there was some fear initially after it became apparent how big the disinformation campaign from Russia had been during the 2016 election but nothing appears to have come from that, the few hearings congress held were large a disaster that only humiliated Congress and between Republicans defending them and their own ability to lobby against any regulation I think companies like Twitter are more scared of the EU going after them with regulations then the US.
|
On May 28 2020 16:33 StalkerTL wrote:
Being against masks is extremely counterproductive. Crabs in a bucket and all that.
The main reason that Japan’s health system isn’t filled with thousands of dying people is likely due to everyone wearing a mask and social distancing. This is despite being behind the curve when it comes to discouraging the local population from smoking, having the oldest population on average, extremely high population densities in major cities, some of the busiest public transport routes in the world and a government that can’t legally enforce a lockdown.
Refusing to not wear a mask during this pandemic is like not wearing a seatbelt. People who refuse to do so cite their freedoms being removed but the reality is that it’s a small thing to do to prevent yourself from being a weapon. It’s an admission that you value some tiny insignificant personal comfort over potentially killing someone when an accident happens.
It's even worse than not wearing a seatbelt! If you don't wear your seatbelt, you're unnecessarily risking your life. If you don't wear a mask (or get vaccinated, for that matter), you risk your life *and* the lives of others.
|
The "arguments" against mask wearing parallel those raised against mandatory seatbelt laws back in the late '60s. Also, just to quibble needlessly with your point, DPB, not wearing a seatbelt raises the risk that an individual in a car crash is ejected or thrown about the cabin, so there is some increased risk towards others :D
|
On May 28 2020 12:31 Mohdoo wrote:
Twitter dude strikes me as the type who realizes he totally doesn't need any more money. I would like to see him stay the course and let it all burn down if that's what it takes. He's a billionaire either way.
I'm rooting for Twitter! I have never used it and probably never will, but if the CEO doesn't back down I may install it just to upvote or whatever him.
That cheap shot from Conway. What a bi...tter person.
Who needs reality TV when we got reality?
|
On May 28 2020 20:51 farvacola wrote:
The "arguments" against mask wearing parallel those raised against mandatory seatbelt laws back in the late '60s. Also, just to quibble needlessly with your point, DPB, not wearing a seatbelt raises the risk that an individual in a car cash is ejected or thrown about the cabin, so there is some increased risk towards others :D
Fair point; I appreciate the needless quibble 
Now I'm picturing an exponentially-growing chain reaction of drivers being launched out of their seats, through windshields, into other cars, all because of one idiot who didn't wear his seat belt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
