Anonymity and temptation

The young rioters in England wear hoods and masks to hide their identities.  British authorities trying to tamp things down are pondering allowing police to require people to show their faces.

Anonymity is indeed tied to bad behavior.   Shame is one of those first-use of the law phenomena that helps keep our sinful natures from breaking out.  But when no one knows who we are, our inhibitions are released.  We certainly see this in the internet, when people in blog wars and email flames can become much more vicious than they would be in actual person-to-person contact,where the online bomb thrower is often quite a nice guy.

On the other hand, anonymity has its positive uses too, protecting legitimate privacy and shielding the individual from negative social pressures.

Is there a way to balance all of this?

Britain weighs personal freedoms against need to keep order – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • fws

    insurance of a fare trial sort of trumps any other consideration. I am not sure where that would put this.

  • fws

    insurance of a fare trial sort of trumps any other consideration. I am not sure where that would put this.

  • DonS

    Reading the posted article, I note that government is considering tamping down on social media, and requiring people to remove their face coverings in troubled areas. The former is a terrible idea. The latter is reasonable.

    I also noted this: “Cameron said authorities would employ the kind of court restraining orders used to limit gang activities in the United States, and step up the cutting-off of welfare benefits to gang members.”

    My question — why in the heck are gang members getting welfare benefits in the first place? If they are able-bodied enough to loot, they are certainly able-bodied enough to work. And it would keep them out of trouble.

    I am continually amazed at what our modern liberal utopia has wrought.

  • DonS

    Reading the posted article, I note that government is considering tamping down on social media, and requiring people to remove their face coverings in troubled areas. The former is a terrible idea. The latter is reasonable.

    I also noted this: “Cameron said authorities would employ the kind of court restraining orders used to limit gang activities in the United States, and step up the cutting-off of welfare benefits to gang members.”

    My question — why in the heck are gang members getting welfare benefits in the first place? If they are able-bodied enough to loot, they are certainly able-bodied enough to work. And it would keep them out of trouble.

    I am continually amazed at what our modern liberal utopia has wrought.

  • helen

    DonS @ 2

    There is a difference between “being able to work” and “being able to get a job”as a good many in this country could tell you. This is true for educated and experienced adults, let alone teenagers.

    There is also a difference between “able bodies” and “competently trained minds”. A few in school can’t learn; ditch digging and such is (unfortunately for them), automated these days.
    Many more won’t, as I can tell you from a year in a NJ school (having been assigned the classes where no regular staff wanted to waste their time).
    [And, FTM, a few weeks subbing in a Texas LCMS day school that was totally out of control.]

  • helen

    DonS @ 2

    There is a difference between “being able to work” and “being able to get a job”as a good many in this country could tell you. This is true for educated and experienced adults, let alone teenagers.

    There is also a difference between “able bodies” and “competently trained minds”. A few in school can’t learn; ditch digging and such is (unfortunately for them), automated these days.
    Many more won’t, as I can tell you from a year in a NJ school (having been assigned the classes where no regular staff wanted to waste their time).
    [And, FTM, a few weeks subbing in a Texas LCMS day school that was totally out of control.]

  • DonS

    Helen @ 3: I understand. But welfare should be reserved for those who can’t work. Unemployment compensation is the system in place for those who temporarily cannot find a job. Certainly, someone who is capable of joining a gang and committing mayhem has no business on the public dole.

    Regarding the larger problem regarding our educational system that you reference, as I have commented before, we need to get away from the foolhardy notion of insisting that everyone has the “right” to a college education. Only those meeting appropriate admissions criteria should be in college. This will address the issue of chronic inflation in higher education which is caused by too much demand and too much government subsidy of this sector of the economy, and will ensure that those qualified to be students have the educational resources they need. It will have the side benefit of saving governments many hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and will greatly increase competition among colleges for the truly qualified students. Yes, many colleges will close, but that’s OK.

    Community colleges, in the meantime, can be re-purposed to technical and trades training, so that those not suited for college will be qualified for good trades and skilled labor jobs.

    The other thing we need to do is to make our labor more competitive, and to urge our government to actually cooperate with businesses to keep manufacturing jobs in the states, rather than exporting good jobs overseas. Streamline and eliminate bureaucracies and regulations which choke out jobs. Encourage government bureaucrats who remain to actually help businesses. What a concept.

  • DonS

    Helen @ 3: I understand. But welfare should be reserved for those who can’t work. Unemployment compensation is the system in place for those who temporarily cannot find a job. Certainly, someone who is capable of joining a gang and committing mayhem has no business on the public dole.

    Regarding the larger problem regarding our educational system that you reference, as I have commented before, we need to get away from the foolhardy notion of insisting that everyone has the “right” to a college education. Only those meeting appropriate admissions criteria should be in college. This will address the issue of chronic inflation in higher education which is caused by too much demand and too much government subsidy of this sector of the economy, and will ensure that those qualified to be students have the educational resources they need. It will have the side benefit of saving governments many hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and will greatly increase competition among colleges for the truly qualified students. Yes, many colleges will close, but that’s OK.

    Community colleges, in the meantime, can be re-purposed to technical and trades training, so that those not suited for college will be qualified for good trades and skilled labor jobs.

    The other thing we need to do is to make our labor more competitive, and to urge our government to actually cooperate with businesses to keep manufacturing jobs in the states, rather than exporting good jobs overseas. Streamline and eliminate bureaucracies and regulations which choke out jobs. Encourage government bureaucrats who remain to actually help businesses. What a concept.

  • Dan Kempin

    Veith:

    “anonymity has its positive uses too, protecting legitimate privacy and shielding the individual from negative social pressures.”

    Not sure I’m following you here. Can you make it a bit more specific? I know that anonymity is a very, very powerful temptation toward evil, but I am trying to think of how it works for good.

    Upon reflection, it is interesting to think that scripture speaks of anonymity when doing good (do not let your right hand know what your left is doing; go into your closet and pray; your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you), but the opposite when it comes to wickedness. (There is nothing secret that will not be revealed; nothing whispered in secret that will not be shouted from the rooftops.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Veith:

    “anonymity has its positive uses too, protecting legitimate privacy and shielding the individual from negative social pressures.”

    Not sure I’m following you here. Can you make it a bit more specific? I know that anonymity is a very, very powerful temptation toward evil, but I am trying to think of how it works for good.

    Upon reflection, it is interesting to think that scripture speaks of anonymity when doing good (do not let your right hand know what your left is doing; go into your closet and pray; your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you), but the opposite when it comes to wickedness. (There is nothing secret that will not be revealed; nothing whispered in secret that will not be shouted from the rooftops.)

  • fws

    dan,

    luther states in his sermon on the two kingdoms that FC art VI on the third use of the Law declares is it’s basis that the earthly purpose of the Law is for everyone to mind to his own business and to stay out of the personal lives , business and property of others.

    This would seem to be all about privacy. We should not get to know most of the details of the life of others. The divine will is that Goodness and Mercy be done. God does this with the Law and the Gospel. People have a hard time enjoying what God has given them when others meddle or invade their privacy.

    And in a legal sense, if someone is arrested and charged with a crime, and then the face of that someone is plastered all over the place, this can make it impossible to get a fair trial. People think seeing is believing are can be very swaying by a video that may not tell the whole story.

    Now requiring people walking on the street to not wear hoods or veils maybe is problematic to, but it is not so obvious to me how.

  • fws

    dan,

    luther states in his sermon on the two kingdoms that FC art VI on the third use of the Law declares is it’s basis that the earthly purpose of the Law is for everyone to mind to his own business and to stay out of the personal lives , business and property of others.

    This would seem to be all about privacy. We should not get to know most of the details of the life of others. The divine will is that Goodness and Mercy be done. God does this with the Law and the Gospel. People have a hard time enjoying what God has given them when others meddle or invade their privacy.

    And in a legal sense, if someone is arrested and charged with a crime, and then the face of that someone is plastered all over the place, this can make it impossible to get a fair trial. People think seeing is believing are can be very swaying by a video that may not tell the whole story.

    Now requiring people walking on the street to not wear hoods or veils maybe is problematic to, but it is not so obvious to me how.

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Anonymity and privacy are two different things, surely?

    In any case, note also that the rioting has been a totally urban phenomenon. Urban living fosters the sort of anonymity that makes rioting possible, even likely under certain conditions . You don’t see youth in villages or small towns trashing the high street.

    As for banning masks and hoods, that would also require banning the burka, surely? I don’t think Britain will go down that path, given their long tradition of respecting individual liberty (a quite different conception of liberty from France).

    Btw, Britain is, of course, highly urbanised, and not coincidentally it is also probably the most monitored society in the world, courtesy of the ubiquitous CCTV cameras. That fact surely speaks to the profound questions raised by urban anonymity. (Nevertheless, it is the pics from those cameras that are now leading to arrests. )

  • http://acroamaticus.blogspot.com Pr Mark Henderson

    Anonymity and privacy are two different things, surely?

    In any case, note also that the rioting has been a totally urban phenomenon. Urban living fosters the sort of anonymity that makes rioting possible, even likely under certain conditions . You don’t see youth in villages or small towns trashing the high street.

    As for banning masks and hoods, that would also require banning the burka, surely? I don’t think Britain will go down that path, given their long tradition of respecting individual liberty (a quite different conception of liberty from France).

    Btw, Britain is, of course, highly urbanised, and not coincidentally it is also probably the most monitored society in the world, courtesy of the ubiquitous CCTV cameras. That fact surely speaks to the profound questions raised by urban anonymity. (Nevertheless, it is the pics from those cameras that are now leading to arrests. )

  • helen

    Don S @ 4
    I agree with what you say about colleges.

    I’m not sure what you mean by making our labor “more competitive”. If you mean cheaper, labor has been standing still or going backward since Reagan; the wage multiple between the working man and the CEO has grown from a crack to a chasm.

    We already have a lot of people working overtime or two jobs; are you suggesting that we abandon child labor laws to compete with Asia? We’ve seen what can happen when safety standards are ignored in a mining disaster. A lot of OSHA rules seem a bit too much but I’d hate to go without any.

  • helen

    Don S @ 4
    I agree with what you say about colleges.

    I’m not sure what you mean by making our labor “more competitive”. If you mean cheaper, labor has been standing still or going backward since Reagan; the wage multiple between the working man and the CEO has grown from a crack to a chasm.

    We already have a lot of people working overtime or two jobs; are you suggesting that we abandon child labor laws to compete with Asia? We’ve seen what can happen when safety standards are ignored in a mining disaster. A lot of OSHA rules seem a bit too much but I’d hate to go without any.

  • helen

    Oh, and how would you solve the lack of discipline and inclination to learn among the middle and high schoolers?

    As a teacher over in New Jersey from Pennsylvania observed:
    In PA, we can paddle and we have 99% less mouthing off in class than we get here in NJ where you can’t touch them.

    In Texas, (30 years ago; I’m told it’s deteriorated since) high school boys out of line had a choice: detention or “swats”. Mostly they chose swats because they felt detention was time wasted and they didn’t have to mention swats at home, (where some might have gotten another).
    [I don't know about girls.]

  • helen

    Oh, and how would you solve the lack of discipline and inclination to learn among the middle and high schoolers?

    As a teacher over in New Jersey from Pennsylvania observed:
    In PA, we can paddle and we have 99% less mouthing off in class than we get here in NJ where you can’t touch them.

    In Texas, (30 years ago; I’m told it’s deteriorated since) high school boys out of line had a choice: detention or “swats”. Mostly they chose swats because they felt detention was time wasted and they didn’t have to mention swats at home, (where some might have gotten another).
    [I don't know about girls.]

  • DonS

    Helen @ 8: Good and thoughtful comments. Thanks.

    I agree with a lot of what you say. I wasn’t speaking of wage rates, per se. I was speaking of competitiveness. That means having a highly motivated, well-trained, and well educated work force. It means having flexible work rules, so that employers can use their labor force nimbly, which means, in the case of a unionized force, modernizing union work rules, and in the case of non-unionized labor, ensuring that state and federal employment laws help employers use their work force well. Such things as being able to work flexible hours without mandatory overtime, and modernizing laws regarding employee benefits. Especially, health care costs imposed by Obamacare are going to destroy employer ability to provide cost-effective benefits to their labor force. It also means fixing your educational system so that it emphasizes good, basic, fundamental education rather than all of the politically correct garbage infesting our schools currently. It means helping small businesses with an efficient and inexpensive tax burden, rather than heaping ever higher tax rates on employers in the name of “fairness”. It means providing an inexpensive and reliable utility supply to factories (i.e. stop with the “green energy” mandates that are causing costs to rise astronomically). It also means streamlining building permits so that new plants can be built quickly and efficiently. All of these factors go into the cost of labor, and American competitiveness.

  • DonS

    Helen @ 8: Good and thoughtful comments. Thanks.

    I agree with a lot of what you say. I wasn’t speaking of wage rates, per se. I was speaking of competitiveness. That means having a highly motivated, well-trained, and well educated work force. It means having flexible work rules, so that employers can use their labor force nimbly, which means, in the case of a unionized force, modernizing union work rules, and in the case of non-unionized labor, ensuring that state and federal employment laws help employers use their work force well. Such things as being able to work flexible hours without mandatory overtime, and modernizing laws regarding employee benefits. Especially, health care costs imposed by Obamacare are going to destroy employer ability to provide cost-effective benefits to their labor force. It also means fixing your educational system so that it emphasizes good, basic, fundamental education rather than all of the politically correct garbage infesting our schools currently. It means helping small businesses with an efficient and inexpensive tax burden, rather than heaping ever higher tax rates on employers in the name of “fairness”. It means providing an inexpensive and reliable utility supply to factories (i.e. stop with the “green energy” mandates that are causing costs to rise astronomically). It also means streamlining building permits so that new plants can be built quickly and efficiently. All of these factors go into the cost of labor, and American competitiveness.

  • helen

    Another thing that costs us is bribing companies with tax abatement, property or outright cash to move from one state to another. That leaves a mess where they leave and sometime they change their minds in the middle of a construction project and leave a mess where they came. (Intel did that to Austin.)
    It means that workers have to move or find another job if moving’s not feasible. I would be willing to bet the companies stay till their tax forgiveness is up and then find another bunch of suckers. :(

  • helen

    Another thing that costs us is bribing companies with tax abatement, property or outright cash to move from one state to another. That leaves a mess where they leave and sometime they change their minds in the middle of a construction project and leave a mess where they came. (Intel did that to Austin.)
    It means that workers have to move or find another job if moving’s not feasible. I would be willing to bet the companies stay till their tax forgiveness is up and then find another bunch of suckers. :(

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan said (@5):

    I know that anonymity is a very, very powerful temptation toward evil, but I am trying to think of how it works for good.

    It all depends on who is doing what.

    Anonymity works as you describe by preventing punishment for wrongdoing: “You don’t know who I am, so you can’t punish me for doing this”. However, that assumes that what the system is set up to only punish what is truly wrong.

    But what if the system isn’t set up that way? What if one of the authorities abuses his position of power in a similar way: “You know who I am, and the authority I wield, so you can’t punish me for abusing my power”. In such a situation, a person might want to do something that is legal, but would put him afoul of this abusive authority. The anonymous person still wants to avoid punishment, but in this case, he wants to avoid wrongful punishment.

    It is quite possible in this second case that the anonymous person is wanting to do what is good, given that it is the authority (who is in the wrong) who would oppose his doing so. (Not endorsing an either-or worldview here, just saying it’s possible.) Consider whistleblowers.

    Or, you know, consider our conversations here. Many people use pseudonyms (or, at least, vague versions of their full names) precisely because, while what they say here may be legal and even perfectly acceptable, their comments might not be something their employers would handle in the best way (e.g. discriminating against religious or political viewpoints). And yet, with that fear at least somewhat ameliorated, conversations can flow a bit more freely here. Which is good.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan said (@5):

    I know that anonymity is a very, very powerful temptation toward evil, but I am trying to think of how it works for good.

    It all depends on who is doing what.

    Anonymity works as you describe by preventing punishment for wrongdoing: “You don’t know who I am, so you can’t punish me for doing this”. However, that assumes that what the system is set up to only punish what is truly wrong.

    But what if the system isn’t set up that way? What if one of the authorities abuses his position of power in a similar way: “You know who I am, and the authority I wield, so you can’t punish me for abusing my power”. In such a situation, a person might want to do something that is legal, but would put him afoul of this abusive authority. The anonymous person still wants to avoid punishment, but in this case, he wants to avoid wrongful punishment.

    It is quite possible in this second case that the anonymous person is wanting to do what is good, given that it is the authority (who is in the wrong) who would oppose his doing so. (Not endorsing an either-or worldview here, just saying it’s possible.) Consider whistleblowers.

    Or, you know, consider our conversations here. Many people use pseudonyms (or, at least, vague versions of their full names) precisely because, while what they say here may be legal and even perfectly acceptable, their comments might not be something their employers would handle in the best way (e.g. discriminating against religious or political viewpoints). And yet, with that fear at least somewhat ameliorated, conversations can flow a bit more freely here. Which is good.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #12,

    “Consider whistleblowers.”

    Hmm. That is an interesting consideration. I may be spinning off topic, but I am reflecting on the legal principle/right to face one’s accuser. It seems that anonymous whistle blowing would run contrary to that principle and even (theoretically, in turn) embolden someone to a false accusation. How does this play into the 8th commandment? Serious question. Suppose I, as a pastor, receive an anonymous letter accusing someone of grievous sin. Do I:
    -Investigate the accusation? or
    -Ignore the charge, since it is anonymous?

    In my experience, I have tended to the latter. Scripture says that every charge should be established by two or three witnesses. An anonymous charge is less than one. I don’t really know, though. I’m open to persuasion, I guess. Something about “anonymous” just doesn’t feel right to me when anonymity is used to protect yourself.

    Even on the internet, I question the value of anonymity. (Nor do I equate using a screen name with anonymity.) Perhaps there are those who are willing to speak more freely, in a positive sense, because they are not personally known, but that may be more the cultural loss of our ability to disagree cordially than an actual benefit of anonymity. I mean, if you are not willing to stand by what you say or admit later that you were wrong, why speak it in the first place?

    I’m not saying that you or Dr. Veith are wrong in asserting the “positives” of anonymity. I just don’t see it yet.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #12,

    “Consider whistleblowers.”

    Hmm. That is an interesting consideration. I may be spinning off topic, but I am reflecting on the legal principle/right to face one’s accuser. It seems that anonymous whistle blowing would run contrary to that principle and even (theoretically, in turn) embolden someone to a false accusation. How does this play into the 8th commandment? Serious question. Suppose I, as a pastor, receive an anonymous letter accusing someone of grievous sin. Do I:
    -Investigate the accusation? or
    -Ignore the charge, since it is anonymous?

    In my experience, I have tended to the latter. Scripture says that every charge should be established by two or three witnesses. An anonymous charge is less than one. I don’t really know, though. I’m open to persuasion, I guess. Something about “anonymous” just doesn’t feel right to me when anonymity is used to protect yourself.

    Even on the internet, I question the value of anonymity. (Nor do I equate using a screen name with anonymity.) Perhaps there are those who are willing to speak more freely, in a positive sense, because they are not personally known, but that may be more the cultural loss of our ability to disagree cordially than an actual benefit of anonymity. I mean, if you are not willing to stand by what you say or admit later that you were wrong, why speak it in the first place?

    I’m not saying that you or Dr. Veith are wrong in asserting the “positives” of anonymity. I just don’t see it yet.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@13), I imagine we’d both agree that coming up with a list of hard-and-fast rules here wouldn’t be all that helpful.

    For instance, what if you received ten anonymous letters accusing a congregant of a particular sin? It would certainly appear to meet the (scriptural) numerical question you raise, while still falling short of the legal principle you also allude to. Of course, there is a distinction, even legally, between blowing the proverbial whistle and defending that accusation in court. The legal right to face one’s accuser, as I understand it, only applies when one is being legally charged with something. That need not be the case.

    It seems to me that your aversion to anonymity stems from your assuming ideal conditions. In such a world, what, indeed, does the anonymous person have to hide? And hopefully your congregation is ideal enough — which is to say, loving enough — that no one should have reason to fear speaking openly, even when pointing out another’s sin.

    But not all situations are so ideal. Many of us have employers that, while possessing their good points, are still better off not knowing what we think or do in our free time. And there are plenty of places in the world where the same holds for the government, as well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dan (@13), I imagine we’d both agree that coming up with a list of hard-and-fast rules here wouldn’t be all that helpful.

    For instance, what if you received ten anonymous letters accusing a congregant of a particular sin? It would certainly appear to meet the (scriptural) numerical question you raise, while still falling short of the legal principle you also allude to. Of course, there is a distinction, even legally, between blowing the proverbial whistle and defending that accusation in court. The legal right to face one’s accuser, as I understand it, only applies when one is being legally charged with something. That need not be the case.

    It seems to me that your aversion to anonymity stems from your assuming ideal conditions. In such a world, what, indeed, does the anonymous person have to hide? And hopefully your congregation is ideal enough — which is to say, loving enough — that no one should have reason to fear speaking openly, even when pointing out another’s sin.

    But not all situations are so ideal. Many of us have employers that, while possessing their good points, are still better off not knowing what we think or do in our free time. And there are plenty of places in the world where the same holds for the government, as well.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #14,

    Fair enough. I understand your point, and maybe I am (as usual) splitting too fine a hair.

    It just seems that the examples you use are more a case where anonymity is appropriate, not necessarily a positive in itself. Kind of like the use of force. There are times when it is appropriate, but I’m not sure I’d say that it is ever positive.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #14,

    Fair enough. I understand your point, and maybe I am (as usual) splitting too fine a hair.

    It just seems that the examples you use are more a case where anonymity is appropriate, not necessarily a positive in itself. Kind of like the use of force. There are times when it is appropriate, but I’m not sure I’d say that it is ever positive.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Dan (@15), this is clearly a bigger, or at least different issue, then. Something can be appropriate, yet not positive? Hmm. The use of force is certainly a positive to the one protected by it, though the need for protection does presume a sinful world. But if that’s the case, then you couldn’t even call our Savior a positive thing!

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Dan (@15), this is clearly a bigger, or at least different issue, then. Something can be appropriate, yet not positive? Hmm. The use of force is certainly a positive to the one protected by it, though the need for protection does presume a sinful world. But if that’s the case, then you couldn’t even call our Savior a positive thing!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Eh, logic leap in there: if the presumption of a sinful world is itself never a positive thing, then you couldn’t even call our Savior a positive thing.

    It was written on a phone on a bus on a Friday. I demand slack-cutting.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Eh, logic leap in there: if the presumption of a sinful world is itself never a positive thing, then you couldn’t even call our Savior a positive thing.

    It was written on a phone on a bus on a Friday. I demand slack-cutting.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD,

    Ha! Well, the salvation is a positive, but the need for salvation is not. His suffering was not a good in itself, but His love was the good that led him to endure suffering.

    Or consider that war can be appropriate, sometimes even necessary, but is war ever good? I think the idea of appropriate but not inherently positive may have some merit, (though I’m not sure it leads to any “positive” gain.)

    If there was no sin, would there be anonymity? Adam and Eve were naked and they knew no shame. Maybe that’s what causes me to struggle in seeing the “positive” of being anonymous. Perhaps I am connecting it, rightly or wrongly, with shame, the first emotion to curse man after the fall.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD,

    Ha! Well, the salvation is a positive, but the need for salvation is not. His suffering was not a good in itself, but His love was the good that led him to endure suffering.

    Or consider that war can be appropriate, sometimes even necessary, but is war ever good? I think the idea of appropriate but not inherently positive may have some merit, (though I’m not sure it leads to any “positive” gain.)

    If there was no sin, would there be anonymity? Adam and Eve were naked and they knew no shame. Maybe that’s what causes me to struggle in seeing the “positive” of being anonymous. Perhaps I am connecting it, rightly or wrongly, with shame, the first emotion to curse man after the fall.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X