Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Caricaturist Molly Norris has disappeared...  
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9755 posts, RR: 31
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Caricaturist Molly Norris from Seattle has disappeared. She ceased to exist from one day to the next. I wonder that no one has started a thread about this here. After all, it took a couple of days until the news hit Germany. Why did she go?

She called for the creation of a "Draw Mohammed Day". That is a legitimate matter for a caricaturist in a country that gives is citizens the right of free speech. One could think.Not so. She received death threads from hate preachers and she had to go underground if she wanted to stay alive. She lost her basics of life, her friends, her social environment and she even has to pay for her new identity all by herself.

Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

Interesting to know. After all, the media hype was - rightfully - large when some idiot christian fundamentalist threatened to burn the Koran. Now here we have the same story vv, even worse, a human beeing is threatened for her life - and nothing happens. No media outcry, no support., no President defending the constitution.


Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Well, the media at least did report, but I would love to see Mrs. Norris' Governor to address the issue - I don't think he/she has.
Futil you say? Yes, but some words aren't just a disturbance of silence.

Besides, states involved should definitely cover the expenses for getting her a new identity for crying out loud.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2775 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

     

WHOA.

Did the state have anything to do with her disappearance? Or did she go underground for her own security, due to to death threats from radicals?

Yes we have a constitutional right to free speech. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea to say something just because you can. American cartoonists are already free to draw whatever they wish; if a cartoonist here has an idea for a cartoon involving Mohammed; that's when to draw him. That being so, Norris's aim doesn't seem to have been artistic expression. I think she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2630 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 2):
she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.

If we start calling death threats "the natural consequence" of execising your right to free speech, no matter how controversial, we - or you Americans - can drop the 1st amendment alltogether. It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.

No, the state has no duty to protect its citizens. The state has a duty to protect the citizen's free speech rights. Freedom of speech allows people to do or say or write or draw or whatever just about anything they want, so long as they don't infringe on someone else's right. But that freedom does not protect you from the consequences of your action.

I believe she has every right to do what she did and I believe, if she wanted to do it, she should do it. But, the threats should have been expected. The death threats are illegal and should be investigated and punished. If she chooses to go underground, that is up to her. I don't think the state should be required to pay for it.

It's not like she turned state's evidence against someone at the state's request. Her actions were her own.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinen229nw From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1973 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Free speech doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. There is simply no excuse for death threats etc., but that said, they were 100% predictable, and her whole "idea" was to provoke them just to provoke them--and to prove what point exactly, that she could offend a lot of people who hadn't done anything to her, and that some of them were unreasonable enough to threaten her? Brilliant point! So novel   .

It's a little like someone saying "Hey y'all, watch this!!" and then poking a pit pull in the face with a cattle iron repeatedly. Wow, "look ma, no (more) hands!!!"

Sorry if she wanted to take herself out of the gene pool that bad, but really...



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Caricaturist Molly Norris from Seattle has disappeared.

Who?

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this.

See above.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

Yes. Does Germany have similar clauses?   


User currently offlineacidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1875 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Airstud (Reply 2):
Yes we have a constitutional right to free speech. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea to say something just because you can. American cartoonists are already free to draw whatever they wish; if a cartoonist here has an idea for a cartoon involving Mohammed; that's when to draw him. That being so, Norris's aim doesn't seem to have been artistic expression. I think she did something incendiary and stupid and is dealing with the natural consequences of it.

I had a conversation about this subject the other day with a friend of mine in regards to the minister in Florida who wanted to burn copies of the Qu'ran. Every country has a different set of laws and/or judicial interpretation of what "free speech" is. Obviously there are some nations that really don't provide much in the way of free speech but many do.

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

The US is kind of unique in that pretty much anything goes, even hateful speech as long as it doesn't incite violence. In fact we will defend someone's right to say things that are just downright horrible, hurtful, offensive and incendiary as our laws and our beliefs call for ALL freedom of expression. I actually saw an article on the BBC's news website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11254419 explaining how freedom of expression protections work in the US; it was really obvious that the extent to what is allowed is quite baffling to people in most of the rest of the world. In many countries there are exceptions. Germany and many European nations prohibit display of the swastika and denial of the Holocaust. Even though the US fought the Nazis and it is safe to say that most Americans would never support such an ideology it is in our laws to protect anyone who does, no matter how vile that sounds to people. The idea of freedom of expression is so sacred in US culture that we defend it with force, no matter how bad it is. It is one of those "slippery slope" ideas - if you restrict one thing what is next to follow? I'm sure there are nations that provide for many freedoms of expression but prohibit something like defamation of holy books like the Qu'ran.

In the US we send a really weird mixed message to the rest of the world. We send a message that we support pretty much all expression and support everyone's rights to worship in whatever religion they want to. But at the same time we say that it is someone's right to denigrate or defame something as holy or revered as the Qu'ran is to Muslims. While many, both within the US and abroad, called on President Obama to stop this minister from burning copies of the Qu'ran, it was not within the laws for him to do so. In fact it would have been ILLEGAL for him to do so. Even the President doesn't get to trump our guarantees of freedom of expression!



Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9755 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2600 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
If we start calling death threats "the natural consequence" of execising your right to free speech, no matter how controversial, we - or you Americans - can drop the 1st amendment alltogether. It is the state's duty to protect its citizens so they can freely exercise their rights.

  

absolutely

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
No, the state has no duty to protect its citizens

If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city? From my understanding, the states have the monopoly of power which is exercised by police and the judiciary system. That gives the states automatically the duty to protect ist citizens.

.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 6):
Yes. Does Germany have similar clauses?

No.

Reallly interesting replies from our friends of the USA. We should offer Ms. Norris asylum in Germany on the basis that the US consitution does not protect its citizens basic rights when certain groups are "offended".

.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
Reallly interesting replies from our friends of the USA. We should offer Ms. Norris asylum in Germany on the basis that the US consitution does not protect its citizens basic rights when certain groups are "offended".

Please do, since none of us know who she is anyway. You know us with all our anti-muslim clauses in the constitution and all. We might harm her. Certainly she'd be better off in Germany.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city?



Please see this link:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

or if you like:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

The police have no duty to protect the citizen. More properly said, the police are not infringing on your rights by not protecting you.

There are exceptions. One exception is the special relationship formed between you and the police when they arrest you. The police now have a duty to protect you because they have you in custody.

Imagine you can sue a police department because they failed to protect you from a mugger.

The police exist to investigate crime, make arrests, keep the public peace and occasionally interfere in a crime as it's committed or before it's committed..



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13209 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Recently in the UK, several people have been arrested for putting out a video showing them burning copies of the Koran on 9/11/10, these arrest took place in a land that while it has significant rights as to free speech, it is much narrower than the USA.

In the USA there is a personal responsibilty as to what you say with few statutory limits like against distributing pictures of nude persons under age 18. If a white person yells the n-word into a crowd of young Black men, they will not be violating the law, but could get a beat down, a violation of law as to the young Black men. If you are in objection to legal abortions in the USA, you can protest, but there are limits in some places as such protests can limit the constitutionally protected rights of privacy as to medical services and from harassment if you choose to go to such a facilty. If you do something that offends in a religious way, that is sacreligious, you may be protected by law in saying that, but it cannot protect you from a 'beat down' from those offended, like those of the Islamic faith offended by any pictorial depection of The Prophet.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
Please do [grant Mrs. Norris asylum], since none of us know who she is anyway

In other words it would be different if Mrs. Norris was a celeb?

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
You know us with all our anti-muslim clauses in the constitution and all. We might harm her.

I think you have it backwards. Mrs. Norris is not a Muslima so your "anti-muslim clauses in the constitution" can not harm her. She receives death treaths from extremist Muslims.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Here's a story describing that the FBI advised her to go into hiding.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...drawmohammedday1stldwritethru.html


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
If that is so, why are there police forces in each state and city? From my understanding, the states have the monopoly of power which is exercised by police and the judiciary system. That gives the states automatically the duty to protect ist citizens.

The state can't protect you. Theo van Gogh had no time to pick up a phone and call the cops, much less time to wait for their arrival. Kurt Westergaard had a close call in his own home, despite being under police protection.

The police is there as law enforcement. They come in after the law has been broken. You are lucky if they get there as it's happening.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2452 times:

Those comparisons hold little water. For once, Theo van Gogh thought he was safe. But first and foremost it would render the right to free speech theoretical if state refuses to protect you and cover the expenses for your protection after exercising said right. The fact that no protection can be 100% notwithstanding.

If your President and his family needs to be protected, it is only logical he and his family gets the protection without having to pay for it. Mrs. Norris, after exercising her 1st amendment rights, needs protection too, albeit on a smaller level, but apparently has to pay for it.

The reasons some people here provided as explanation were:

- Molly who? No one knows her anyway.
- She was stupid to announce the "draw Mohammad Day" in the first place
- She can say what she wants but has to deal with it if she gets "beaten down" (or shot down more like it)

The first two indicate that you need to be famous and/or smart to be able to exercise your right freely - and not only in theory.
The third ignores what I mentioned before, that it is the government's duty to protect its citizens and their rights.
Otherwise you would see no police in NYC protecting the people's right to protest against the muslim center near ground zero.

Otherwise many Italian reporters who uncovered Mafia structures in their articles and books were long shot dead, and with them their right to free speech.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15):
that it is the government's duty to protect its citizens



The US Supreme Court is clear on the subject; unless a special relationship exists between the police and the citizen, there is no duty to protect the citizen...none.

By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia and begin to loudly disparage the Red Sox, and then should immediately be offered police protection.

Or, I should be allowed to wade into the midst of a bunch of (insert group here) disparage their (whatever) and expect the state to be there and provide protection in the absence of a crime? No, that's un-workable.

It is up to government to protect my right to speech; no that's wrong. It is up to us to ensure that government does not infringe on our right of free speech. It is not up to the government to protect me if I offend with my speech. Up until I am actually attacked...or The State has credible, actionable information that an attack is imminent, The State has no duty to protect me.

Again, what's to prevent every victim of a crime from suing their municipality for a breech of this imaginary duty to protect?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9755 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 14):
Kurt Westergaard had a close call in his own home, despite being under police protection.

Kurt Westergaard has permanent protection from the Danish police. Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia a

completely invalid comparison. In sports, clubs and their fans compete, they may have fights, but they don't kill. Here, we have to do with fanatic fundamentalists who have zero tolerance, can't even spell the word and don't allow any differenmt view on a particular matter other than their own.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
The State has no duty to protect me.

That would be a good explanation why many Americans have more guns in their houses than the complete Army of Luxemburg. OK, fine. In our neck of the woods, the state has the monopoly of power, allows arming of the public only in rare cases but in turn has to protect its citizens. That may not always be very efficient, but in the case of Ms. Norris she would be eligeble.

And, BTW, freedom of speech is not an offense, cannot be an offense. Ms. Norris did not insult anyone, she just published some thoughts about a certain matter. She did not call M with 4letter words or anything, she just thought about drawing pictures. What's wrong about that? If radicals of that religion don't like it, OK. But that does not give them the right to kill anyone. No one, not a religion, not a group, has the right to force their beliefs on other people.

Simple as that. And if other people do things they don't like, they have to accept that and shrug it off. Simple as that.

The people in the western democracies have fought over 500 years for individual freedom. We have it now guaranteed in our constitutions and it looks like we have to be very careful and vigilant to keep it that way.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Can you hold a pro-Nazi rally? Can you draw swastikas?

How free is your free speech?

Be clear, I'm not saying those are things I'd like to do but I think a bit of your motivation here is just to dump on the US while, in fact, I'm not sure you have as much freedom as you purport.

It sounds to me as if US officials were, at least, monitoring issues related to her safety. That said, taxpayers aren't footing the bill to give her lifetime protection.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5660 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
That would be a good explanation why many Americans have more guns in their houses than the complete Army of Luxemburg. OK, fine.

That is correct. We can and do arm ourselves because it is impractible to believe that the police can be everywhere, all the time. Another option is to proactively shut down free speech whenever it may offensive.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
And, BTW, freedom of speech is not an offense, cannot be an offense.

Anyone can be offended by anything. Speech can be one of the most offensive things in this country.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

I think the idea is stupid, and doesn't even try to be a little "egalitarian" by making it "draw the prophet day" or something, so it could be about Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and others.

Now, clearly this is protected by the free speech/expression laws of probably all western countries. I'm not a specialist on police protection but I know that the threats need to be very serious, it's not up to you to decide when you need it, so if she acted on her own, there is no reason for the authorities to pay for it.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11):
If a white person yells the n-word into a crowd of young Black men, they will not be violating the law

In France they would be. The interior minister has recently been convicted for less than that : http://www.france24.com/en/20100604-...m-fined-750-euros-hortefeux-france



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15):
But first and foremost it would render the right to free speech theoretical if state refuses to protect you and cover the expenses for your protection after exercising said right.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
Kurt Westergaard has permanent protection from the Danish police. Freedom of speech is a very high and protectable right in Denmark, in Germany in all of Western Europe. Obviously not so int he USA.

Obviously there is a distinction between protecting one's right to free speech and claiming there is a right to police protection. And it's not theoretical, it's real: Molly was not thrown in jail for what she said. That another person decided to take matters into their own hands is besides the point. If they did something criminal, and anything criminal is a violation of some right, they should be prosecuted.

Freedom of speech is something that really can only be violated in conjunction with government action. Like with Theo's murderer, you end up in jail for murder but not for violating Theo's free speech. Something the criminal never did anyways, he "only" violated Theo's right to life.

[Edited 2010-09-24 19:49:42]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21882 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Imagine you can sue a police department because they failed to protect you from a mugger.

If I had credible evidence that I was a specific target for a mugging (i.e. someone told me I'd be mugged), and I told the police about it, and then got mugged without them doing anything, yes I'd be suing.

The police can't be everywhere, but if they've got warning of something, they should be taking action. That's why they investigate bomb threats instead of waiting to see if they actually go off or not.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
By your logic, I should be able to go to Fenway Park, wearing full New York Yankee regalia and begin to loudly disparage the Red Sox, and then should immediately be offered police protection.

If you did that, you would be. In the form of the police escorting you out for your own protection.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
The State has credible, actionable information that an attack is imminent, The State has no duty to protect me.

You mean like a credible death threat?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting n229nw (Reply 5):
Free speech doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. There is simply no excuse for death threats etc., but that said, they were 100% predictable, and her whole "idea" was to provoke them just to provoke them--and to prove what point exactly, that she could offend a lot of people who hadn't done anything to her, and that some of them were unreasonable enough to threaten her? Brilliant point! So novel

You do realize of course that you are saying that Muslims (radical ones anyway), are animals?

If I tease a grizzly bear, and he kills me, I asked for it. The bear acted naturally for a bear, and I should have known better.

Now if I go up to you and tease you, and you kill me, YOU are going away for murder. Human beings are supposed to be able to control their animal impulses - that is the entire meaning of civilization, and has frequently been used as the reason why humans are different than animals.

This woman does not deserve to live in fear for her life, like Salman Rushdie and hundreds of others, for having offended a religion.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Thread starter):
Me wonders what the opinions are in the US about this. Does your constituttion now have little clauses "except when Mohammed...." ?

A little late to the party, but my first thought was "bold, but maybe not wise". If you tease the right dog enough, eventually it will bite. So long as the government does not prohibit her from doing so, I see no conflict with the US Constitution.



Proud OOTSK member
25 MD11Engineer : The problem in most western societies is that the laws discourage you from efficiently protecting yourself. The legal system primarely operates on det
26 Mir : Is she really protected by the FBI? I didn't see anything to that effect, only that they recommended that she go into hiding but wouldn't protect her
27 fr8mech : See reply 23. This person had a restraining order against her assailant and lost her suit against the police. The police can't be everywhere. They ca
28 777way : FYI in Iran they depict, draw, paint, carve pictures of all Shia leaders, no fuss regarding the subject there, the reason for not allowing it is simp
29 n229nw : All people are animals, actually, if you want to get technical about it. Seriously, though, I know you were trying to twist my words to make this wor
30 lowrider : I can live with that definition as a starting point.
31 OA412 : Do some of you honestly believe that those who draw caricatures of Jesus or of the Pope do not receive death threats? Do you really think that everyon
32 PanHAM : absolutely free. Crminal offense excluded. You cannot go on the Mall and ecxlaim that the president should be assassinated. That does not fall under
33 fr8mech : Nice try, but a threat against the president is a threat against a person. Holding a pro-Nazi rally is not a threat, it's a political statement. So,
34 Aesma : Well, she's in a country where you can in fact buy guns and all, it doesn't seem to help does it ? And I'm pretty sure death threats are illegal, so
35 Dreadnought : For a little while, maybe. In our culture, if I am angry at you and say, "I'm gonna kill you!", a little cooling off phase should be enough to allevi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chuck Norris Sues Over 400 Facts Book posted Sun Dec 23 2007 08:24:24 by RJdxer
Your Fav. Chuck Norris "jokes"... posted Wed Nov 21 2007 13:01:42 by Vio
Facts About Chuck Norris posted Tue Sep 25 2007 13:32:52 by Gkirk
Chuck Norris Pluging Teaching The Bible In PS? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 17:21:09 by TedTAce
Columnist Molly Ivins Dies posted Thu Feb 1 2007 02:05:16 by Texan
Chuck Norris Facts posted Fri Mar 31 2006 22:58:29 by Ibhayi
Chuck Norris Jokes....funny Stuff posted Wed Mar 15 2006 07:29:37 by LOT767-300ER
Who Is Chuck Norris? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 12:40:21 by Nighthawk
Young Chuck Norris SNL Skit =D posted Mon Jan 23 2006 18:48:28 by Tbar220
And That´s Why He Is Chuck Norris posted Fri Jan 20 2006 14:45:39 by Erikwilliam