Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court, a panel of 9 judges where the 53-year old is considered the young upstart, doesn't really "get" technology; which is really bad news if you care about the 4th Amendment   (politico.com) divider line 134
    More: Scary, Supreme Court, jury, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, fifth amendment rights, lower courts, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit  
•       •       •

4472 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2013 at 5:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-02 04:04:10 PM  
Well, one member of the court was able to spot a "hi-tech lynching" when he saw it.
 
2013-12-02 04:15:14 PM  
There was also the 1997 Reno v ACLU over the CDA.

The problem does not seem to be so much the court's lack of understanding of technology (though that likely doesn't help), but the current gang-o-nine's relative lack of regard for privacy.
 
2013-12-02 04:33:36 PM  
The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.
 
2013-12-02 04:48:06 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.


That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.
 
2013-12-02 04:58:19 PM  

Stone Meadow: Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.

That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.


You must have missed the part where the cops don't have a warrant.
 
2013-12-02 05:17:07 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Stone Meadow: Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.

That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.

You must have missed the part where the cops don't have a warrant.


Your eyes look bloodshot and I smell pot.
 
2013-12-02 05:44:09 PM  

mediablitz: Marcus Aurelius: Stone Meadow: Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.

That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.

You must have missed the part where the cops don't have a warrant.

Your eyes look bloodshot and I smell pot.


I have a reasonable suspicion that the other guy doesn't understand what probably causes cops to take all your shiat and get away with it.
 
2013-12-02 05:46:06 PM  

mediablitz: Marcus Aurelius: Stone Meadow: Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.

That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.

You must have missed the part where the cops don't have a warrant.

Your eyes look bloodshot and I smell pot.


Hey, lookie there, the dog sat down *snaps on rubber gloves*
 
2013-12-02 05:51:46 PM  
So long as their law clerks understand technology, it's OK.
 
2013-12-02 05:53:48 PM  
To be perfectly fair, just like President, SC Justice isn't a job I'd take for Eleventy Billion Dollars. Seriously, who wants that friggin' nightmare?
 
2013-12-02 05:57:46 PM  
It's not just the Supreme Court. The entire body of law hasn't caught up with technology yet. All these questions being put before the Court and courts in general have their roots in the fact that the Internet, by its very nature, is beyond the scope of what privacy laws and the 4th Amd. was ever meant to protect.

After all, if you store your information in cloud storage, IS it private? If you have a Facebook conversation with someone, did you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Why is data mining by Target acceptable but data mining by the County unacceptable?

All these questions have yet to be adequately answered by the court system; and new ones keep getting added, faster than the subglacial pace of courts can manage. I personally find targeted advertising and data mining by retail stores far more alarming and intrusive than anything the government can do, and far less regulated in terms of its impact on my privacy, because there is not even a minimal warrant requirement on their collections; but I have no recourse at all with them. (Except possibly to only make cash purchases)

For the rest, it has little to do with either age, or warrants, or the 4th Amd. or any of that. It's that technology moves much faster than the courts can handle. Decisions that affect one type of technology are useless today--for instance, Kyllo would seem to have eliminated the use of any tech that uses thermal imaging to locate hot spots in your home as the basis of a warrant--but that's immaterial now because the thermal equipment from that era has been surpassed by infrared and nightvision cameras that are better, and probably bypass the Kyllo restrictions. Cell phones initially slipped past the wiretapping requirements because they could be picked up with CB antennas. Hackers used to get away with it because there were no laws against intercepting Internet transmissions.

There will need to be entirely new laws--possibly a new Amendment--directly addressing online privacy and high-tech spying before this issue can be put to bed. People need to stop expecting that the 4th Amd. and its archaic, restrictive language can cover everything in this digital age.
 
2013-12-02 06:00:31 PM  
it should not be analogized with a container.  it's not a container.

perhaps a question could be, what is the expectation of privacy?  we've used very subjective language for a reason.

just get a search warrant.  they were talking about searches incident to arrest (not search on suspicion, which results in arrest).  so, you've arrested the guy. he's not messing with the phone.  get a search warrant.  they act like getting a search warrant is impossible.

/ however, the whole fifth amendment refusal to give a password is really funny.
 
2013-12-02 06:03:31 PM  
Someone should show the supremes just how much one can find out about them based on simple stuff. Al la target & pregnant teen style.

/dont have the skillz or time
//would be hilarious to do it as your pro 4th ammend argument/brief
///add caveat that police/govt has far better than the mom & pop u hired
 
2013-12-02 06:04:33 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Decisions that affect one type of technology are useless today--for instance, Kyllo would seem to have eliminated the use of any tech that uses thermal imaging to locate hot spots in your home as the basis of a warrant--but that's immaterial now because the thermal equipment from that era has been surpassed by infrared and nightvision cameras that are better, and probably bypass the Kyllo restrictions.


technology had nothing little to do with the legal basis for the thermal imagining case.  while technology raised the issue, it was not legally relevant.  it was the expectation of privacy.  if they got information about the inside of the house, there should have been a warrant.
 
2013-12-02 06:06:04 PM  

Holfax: So long as their law clerks understand technology, it's OK.


i smarted this
 
2013-12-02 06:08:12 PM  
I'm pretty sure a few of them still think that beeswax cylinders run on devilry. "A talking box that records human voice? Witchcraft and devilry are corrupting our youth herpdederp!"
 
2013-12-02 06:11:55 PM  
The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.
 
2013-12-02 06:15:23 PM  

GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.


Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs
 
2013-12-02 06:19:25 PM  
The question should be why won't phone manufacturers build phones that contents can be encrypted?
 
2013-12-02 06:24:42 PM  

mcreadyblue: The question should be why won't phone manufacturers build phones that contents can be encrypted?


Because phone theft is good for business.
 
2013-12-02 06:25:22 PM  
Honestly, if the judge in question "doesn't get" the subject matter of what he's voting on, then they shouldn't be allowed to weigh in until they do.
 
2013-12-02 06:27:20 PM  

Stone Meadow: Marcus Aurelius: The 4th Amendment is gone, subby.  Any cop in America can stop you on the street, take all your money, and there very little you can do about it unless you spend $10k on a lawyer to get it back.

That's a very different issue. Our legal system has been based on adversarial relations since its founding, and one has ALWAYS had to spend money to defend one's rights and property.


They used to at least have to charge you with something to steal your stuff.
 
2013-12-02 06:30:47 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It's not just the Supreme Court. The entire body of law hasn't caught up with technology yet. All these questions being put before the Court and courts in general have their roots in the fact that the Internet, by its very nature, is beyond the scope of what privacy laws and the 4th Amd. was ever meant to protect.

After all, if you store your information in cloud storage, IS it private? If you have a Facebook conversation with someone, did you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Why is data mining by Target acceptable but data mining by the County unacceptable?

All these questions have yet to be adequately answered by the court system; and new ones keep getting added, faster than the subglacial pace of courts can manage. I personally find targeted advertising and data mining by retail stores far more alarming and intrusive than anything the government can do, and far less regulated in terms of its impact on my privacy, because there is not even a minimal warrant requirement on their collections; but I have no recourse at all with them. (Except possibly to only make cash purchases)

For the rest, it has little to do with either age, or warrants, or the 4th Amd. or any of that. It's that technology moves much faster than the courts can handle. Decisions that affect one type of technology are useless today--for instance, Kyllo would seem to have eliminated the use of any tech that uses thermal imaging to locate hot spots in your home as the basis of a warrant--but that's immaterial now because the thermal equipment from that era has been surpassed by infrared and nightvision cameras that are better, and probably bypass the Kyllo restrictions. Cell phones initially slipped past the wiretapping requirements because they could be picked up with CB antennas. Hackers used to get away with it because there were no laws against intercepting Internet transmissions.

There will need to be entirely new laws--possibly a new Amendment--directly addressing online privacy ...


Well, good luck. Way I see it? Blood shed, open revolt and a redistribution of wealth. This shiat is got totally out of hand now.  Until people stop with the posting and get out into the streets, we're just jackin off in Fark.

/several martinis
 
2013-12-02 06:31:29 PM  
And given that they are all lawyers, who by their very nature are completely devoid of any ability to understand technology, why would anyone think that they had any competency in this area?
 
2013-12-02 06:32:05 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It's not just the Supreme Court. The entire body of law hasn't caught up with technology yet. All these questions being put before the Court and courts in general have their roots in the fact that the Internet, by its very nature, is beyond the scope of what privacy laws and the 4th Amd. was ever meant to protect.

After all, if you store your information in cloud storage, IS it private? If you have a Facebook conversation with someone, did you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"? Why is data mining by Target acceptable but data mining by the County unacceptable?

All these questions have yet to be adequately answered by the court system; and new ones keep getting added, faster than the subglacial pace of courts can manage. I personally find targeted advertising and data mining by retail stores far more alarming and intrusive than anything the government can do, and far less regulated in terms of its impact on my privacy, because there is not even a minimal warrant requirement on their collections; but I have no recourse at all with them. (Except possibly to only make cash purchases)

For the rest, it has little to do with either age, or warrants, or the 4th Amd. or any of that. It's that technology moves much faster than the courts can handle. Decisions that affect one type of technology are useless today--for instance, Kyllo would seem to have eliminated the use of any tech that uses thermal imaging to locate hot spots in your home as the basis of a warrant--but that's immaterial now because the thermal equipment from that era has been surpassed by infrared and nightvision cameras that are better, and probably bypass the Kyllo restrictions. Cell phones initially slipped past the wiretapping requirements because they could be picked up with CB antennas. Hackers used to get away with it because there were no laws against intercepting Internet transmissions.

There will need to be entirely new laws--possibly a new Amendment--directly addressing online privacy ...


I liked this post t/y
it made me wonder if expected privacy (as currently written) will have to be re-fought in order to define it - as your post hints, technology is moving too fast for many - and too many now just assume there is no more privacy
 
2013-12-02 06:33:29 PM  

GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.


So.... November, 2013?


iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
 
2013-12-02 06:35:53 PM  
Is there any good legal argument for why a person shouldn't be required to give up a password for an encrypted drive?  I know the whole idea that it is forcing a person to testify against themselves, but that always rang hollow to me.  The password itself isn't incriminating, and if the police have a legitimate warrant for the contents of the drive, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to allow a person to legally withhold the password.
 
2013-12-02 06:38:02 PM  

TheOnion: Is there any good legal argument for why a person shouldn't be required to give up a password for an encrypted drive?  I know the whole idea that it is forcing a person to testify against themselves, but that always rang hollow to me.  The password itself isn't incriminating, and if the police have a legitimate warrant for the contents of the drive, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to allow a person to legally withhold the password.


Best you can do now is an obstruction charge and hope your encryption is really freakin good.
 
2013-12-02 06:39:01 PM  

TheOnion: Is there any good legal argument for why a person shouldn't be required to give up a password for an encrypted drive?  I know the whole idea that it is forcing a person to testify against themselves, but that always rang hollow to me.  The password itself isn't incriminating, and if the police have a legitimate warrant for the contents of the drive, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to allow a person to legally withhold the password.


Did they force Reagan to remember all the things he forgot during his testimony?

I have forgotten is the easiest defense and pretty near impossible to prove otherwise.
 
2013-12-02 06:40:20 PM  

TheOnion: Is there any good legal argument for why a person shouldn't be required to give up a password for an encrypted drive?  I know the whole idea that it is forcing a person to testify against themselves, but that always rang hollow to me.  The password itself isn't incriminating, and if the police have a legitimate warrant for the contents of the drive, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to allow a person to legally withhold the password.


There was a special last night on the history channel about Nixon - and his refusal to turn over the white house tapes.
I know it isn't the same but it isn't hard to see someone refusing to give access to records if it is self-incriminating - at least until they can't refuse anymore and destroy the evidence and get ousted for THAT instead
......was a good special
......once you are caught, you are caught
......better woodward and bernstein than the NSA
 
2013-12-02 06:45:43 PM  

Richard C Stanford: I'm pretty sure a few of them still think that beeswax cylinders run on devilry. "A talking box that records human voice? Witchcraft and devilry are corrupting our youth herpdederp!"


"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil."

~ Antonin Scalia
 
2013-12-02 06:46:52 PM  

fusillade762: Richard C Stanford: I'm pretty sure a few of them still think that beeswax cylinders run on devilry. "A talking box that records human voice? Witchcraft and devilry are corrupting our youth herpdederp!"

"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil."

~ Antonin Scalia


Jesus wept.
 
2013-12-02 06:47:30 PM  

GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.


You mean like the entire Constitution?
 
2013-12-02 06:52:39 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs


Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.
 
2013-12-02 06:56:40 PM  

fusillade762: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

You mean like the entire Constitution?


This. A lot of it needs to be rewritten and/or updated. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon, and it probably SHOULDN'T happen anytime soon; whatever was written would have to get past the Democrats AND Republicans. Which means a lot of authoritarianism (from both sides), a lot of corporate favoritism, and just general unpleasantness.
 
2013-12-02 06:57:59 PM  
i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-12-02 06:58:23 PM  
Oh god, what did Scalia do this time?
 
2013-12-02 07:01:33 PM  

whidbey: Honestly, if the judge in question "doesn't get" the subject matter of what he's voting on, then they shouldn't be allowed to weigh in until they do.


Sounds like we'd need some people appointed to decide if that is the case or not.
 
2013-12-02 07:10:39 PM  

Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.



coloradopeakpolitics.com

'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.
 
2013-12-02 07:11:05 PM  

Mikey1969: To be perfectly fair, just like President, SC Justice isn't a job I'd take for Eleventy Billion Dollars. Seriously, who wants that friggin' nightmare?


Really, dood?
Getting paid to do what I already do on fark for free?
And having those opinions actually have an effect on the real world?
I'd totally do that.  And I'd be the bestest SC Justice in the history of the universe.  Sign me up!
 
2013-12-02 07:15:12 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.




'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.


"We came unarmed this time." That's mentality I'm talking about.
 
2013-12-02 07:22:57 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.


[coloradopeakpolitics.com image 417x395]

'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.


Come on now, this no time to debunk media hysterics. What's next, are you going to tell him that knockout isn't an epidemic and pedophiles won't swoop in and bad touch him if he talks to a stranger?
 
2013-12-02 07:23:44 PM  

Katolu: globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.

'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.

"We came unarmed this time." That's mentality I'm talking about.


How about the my gun isn't harming you so it is none of your business mentality. I have the same mentality about peoples sexuality, what substances they take in, and what they look at on the internet. As long as no one is harmed then it is no ones business. Is that ok with you oh great mind reader.
 
2013-12-02 07:30:42 PM  

CourtroomWolf: Mikey1969: To be perfectly fair, just like President, SC Justice isn't a job I'd take for Eleventy Billion Dollars. Seriously, who wants that friggin' nightmare?

Really, dood?
Getting paid to do what I already do on fark for free?
And having those opinions actually have an effect on the real world?
I'd totally do that.  And I'd be the bestest SC Justice in the history of the universe.  Sign me up!


Nope, not me. I'd feel guilty about every official decision I made, and how it affected people, whose lives it I might have ruined, who might hate me because they didn't understand the full reason I made a decision, etc. It would eat me up... Hell, I'd probably develop a complex where I questioned my most basic decisions...

I'll stick to fark. Less emotional baggage.
 
2013-12-02 07:30:49 PM  
globalwarmingpraiser: LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.

From what I read today on his site, gun deaths in Iceland are spiking.
 
2013-12-02 07:31:49 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.

'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.

"We came unarmed this time." That's mentality I'm talking about.

How about the my gun isn't harming you so it is none of your business mentality. I have the same mentality about peoples sexuality, what substances they take in, and what they look at on the internet. As long as no one is harmed then it is no ones business. Is that ok with you oh great mind reader.


That's a nice persecution complex you've got over your gun... it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
 
2013-12-02 07:31:57 PM  
Want to fix the problem with privacy rights?  We'll split the country into two equally-sized groups.  Those making more than a million dollars get privacy rights.  Those who are making less than a million dollars--and are, by definition, smelly and ugly--do not get privacy rights, because you cannot let a terrorist out of your sight.  Deal?
 
2013-12-02 07:35:45 PM  

Rhino_man: globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: globalwarmingpraiser: Katolu: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: GoldSpider: The 4th Amendment is an anachronism from a time when Americans still owned slaves, shunned non-Christians, and openly carried guns like cavemen brandishing clubs.

Other than the slave part, what has changed?

/Ducks and runs

Don't duck and call the 2nd Amendment zealots on their shiat.

'
LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.

"We came unarmed this time." That's mentality I'm talking about.

How about the my gun isn't harming you so it is none of your business mentality. I have the same mentality about peoples sexuality, what substances they take in, and what they look at on the internet. As long as no one is harmed then it is no ones business. Is that ok with you oh great mind reader.

That's a nice persecution complex you've got over your gun... it would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.



I have the same complex over most aspects of my life. I expect privacy. I respect others privacy and expect mine to be respected. I will defend someones right to free speech and any other rights they have. It is called freedom.
 
2013-12-02 07:40:06 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: globalwarmingpraiser: LOOK AT HOW THE GUN CRIME HAS RISEN SINCE THE AWB ENDED. LOOK AT IT PEOPLE!!!.

From what I read today on his site, gun deaths in Iceland are spiking.


They need to import more lemons from mexico then.
 
2013-12-02 07:40:32 PM  

mcreadyblue: The question should be why won't phone manufacturers build phones that contents can be encrypted?


Seriously. I store important files in an encrypted dropbox container using viivo, which requires a passphrase to access, so it provides some protection, but it's not well integrated into the rest of my phone (like I can't get my pictures to be automatically stored and encrypted there). It would be nice if there was a more comprehensive solution for android.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report