Home News Events Bands Labels Venues Pics MP3s Radio Show Reviews Releases Buy$tuff Forum   Classifieds   News   Localband   Shows   Show Pics   Polls      OT Threads   Other News   Movies   VideoGames   Videos   TV   Sports   Gear   /r/   Food      New Thread   New Poll Miscellaneous Links E-mail Search login

New site? Maybe some day. Username: SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F) Message: UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop Select Color orange orange-red crimson red firebrick dark red green limegreen teal silver sea-green deeppink tomato coral purple indigo burlywood sandy brown sienna chocolate FONTXXSmallXSmallSmallMediumLargeXLXXL :DG: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Char† ‡ ‰ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ‾ ← ↑ → ↓ ™ – —   ¡ ¢ £ ¤ ¥ ¦ § ¨ © ª « ¬ ­ ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ü Ý Þ ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ b i u  add: url  image  video(?) : post by the_reverend at 2006-08-08 11:48:26 with phone calls, 1/2 the convo needs to know it's being recorded. this issue is a public/private speech issue billed as a impeeding justice. if the people recorded hadn't been cops, this wouldn't have made it anywhere. it's completely lame. they could have claimed that at the time they were at the time expecting that they thought their conversation was private. note: if they were on their cellphone in a public place, that has been held up as public speech.

[default homepage]

[print][

9:32:46am May 20,2024 load time 0.01256 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]