Google, Microsoft And Yahoo Sued In India For Not Preventing Sex Selection Ads
from the misunderstanding-liability dept
India unfortunately doesn’t have the equivalent of section 230 of the CDA, which prevents service providers from being sued for the actions of their users. That’s why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are all facing a lawsuit over certain types of ads in India. Apparently it’s illegal in India to advertise any technique or product designed to influence the sex of a child. However, such ads have been appearing on all three sites. The problem, though, is that the liability should be on those who are actually buying the advertising. They’re the parties who are really breaking the law. Yet, because Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are easier targets (and have a lot more money), that’s who gets targeted.
Filed Under: advertisements, india, liability
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo
Comments on “Google, Microsoft And Yahoo Sued In India For Not Preventing Sex Selection Ads”
Why doesn’t Google (et al) just withdraw service to the country(ies) that pull this stupid shit?
Re: Re:
Why dont all three not only withdraw all service to countries that do this, but also pull ALL of the jobs, plants, etc… they have there as well. There are tons of places with cheap lab or that would love to have the jobs.
Re: Re:
If Google would pull out of those countries we wouldn’t have stupid shit to read about lol
What's good for the goose....
I have to weigh in on this, and not because I am from India (although, my wife is).
India law prohibits printed publications from advertising products which claim to be able to influence the sex of a child. What I don’t understand is why that same law shouldn’t apply to online media as well? IF a magazine can be sued for publishing the ad so should Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Should there really be two seperate standards?
Re: What's good for the goose....
Yes, there should be. Magazines have to vet their ads. They only have limited space in their publication. Web sites don’t have to vet anything. So why force them to start?
Re: Re: What's good for the goose....
They already do vet. They have black-lists of keywords that you are not allowed to buy ads for, as well as black-lists of words that aren’t allowed to be in your ads. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to ask them to extend that to the sex-discrimination, but the problem comes in that the advertisement buyer can get around the blacklists by using more common terms.
Re: What's good for the goose....
Magazines have an editor or editors who make a conscious decision to print whatever ends up in their publication.
Online advertisement services have a huge volume of ads, massive in comparison to printed media, which are all handled by automated services. It would be completely impractical to expect them to review each ad before it is put onto the network.
Re: What's good for the goose....
I agree there should not be two different standards. The postings about pulling service and jobs are just idiotic, typical of a business-uneducated American making a dumb political statement.
RE: What's good for the goose....
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are not the ones making the advertisements, and are not the ones paying for the advertisements, this is like suing your mailman for bringing you bad news.
I think a much better service would be for a product that lets babies select smarter parents.
Re: RE: What's good for the goose....
Can the advertisers control which countries their ads appear in?
If you are making money, you are responsible
Yahoo, google, and Microsoft get money from these ads.
If these ads are on sites hosted by them, they need to pony up. Enough with this BS, that they cannot be liable about what’s on the sites that they host. If they are advertising something that is illegal, they need to take care of it. They are benefiting from turning a blind eye. If they can have search programs that can go thru hundreds of thousands of web sites to find what you need, surely, they can have something to vet their advertisement.How is that impractical?
Typical american attitude, no sense of responsibility, only entitlement.
Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
The article was a bit short on details … but I assume that the SC of India is referring to a local presence of each company. fir example: google.in
If not – then they are full of shit.
Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
Typical american attitude, no sense of responsibility, only entitlement.
It’s a typical American attitude to suggest that the company actually responsible for the ad in question be liable, rather than the platform that hosts it?
I don’t think so. I think it’s just a reasoned, logical attitude, rather than an emotional one that things that just because money is involved liability is included.
How far do you take that ridiculous stance?
A telephone company makes money on every phone call, so clearly, if a phone call is used in the commission of a crime, the phone company is liable? Right?
And, why isn’t the broadband provider liable as well? After all, they make money from people getting online.
I’m sorry, but liability should rest with the responsible party. That’s not a “typical American attitude.” It’s one based on fairness and justice.
Re: Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
I don’t understand why people think Microsoft/Yahoo/Google should bear some responsibly.
I personally on’t fell it makes sense at all. However, I do understand that if you wish to do business in another country you must follow that countries laws or risk consequences. PERIOD.
If following the local laws of the land don’t make economic sense then obviously you don’t do business. Or you change how you do business.
With all that out of the way. I do think the law is stupid and I really wish the internet giants enjoyed the same protections they are given in the US.
Re: Re: Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
Oops that first sentence should read.
I don’t understand why people think Microsoft/Yahoo/Google **shouldn’t** bear some responsibly.
Re: Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
Sorry Mike the difference (and I think you know it) is fairly distinct between this and a phone call.
A telephone company makes money on every phone call, so clearly, if a phone call is used in the commission of a crime, the phone company is liable? Right?
In most cases though the phone call is not the actual illegal act – its an enabler, in this case the advert IS the illegal act.
In the above phone call the phone company are not an actor in the crime, the criminal did not ring up the receptionist to ask her to assist him in an illegal act. In the case in India the advertiser did contact and negotiate with Google to place an illegal ad. Can you imagine what would happen to the telephone provider if I rang them up and asked for assistance in contacting the Whitehouse to log a bomb hoax and all they did was take payment?
The fact that they seemingly can’t be bothered filtering ads as it would be tiresome and expensive is, as you often state in other arguments, a business decision, and one that usually works well for them.
At the end of the day Google and co are taking money from someone to assist them actively in an illegal act, if they weren’t giant corporations and were just people on the street they would be called “accessory” or possibly even “accomplice”
In fairness to Google, unlike Microsoft and Yahoo, they actually stated [various factors go into managing ad program policy, including local legal requirements and user experience.] “We review our policies regularly and make changes to keep them current and effective. We have not yet received the petition from the Supreme Court, but we take local laws extremely seriously and will review the petition carefully.” Which would seem to indicate they understand the difference between being an ISP hosting user content, like the above phone company and being actively involved in providing an illegal business service
Re: Re: Re: If you are making money, you are responsible
In most cases though the phone call is not the actual illegal act – its an enabler, in this case the advert IS the illegal act.
EXACTLY. But just like the conversation is the responsibility of the individuals, the ad itself is the responsibility of the posters. Google just provides the platform on which the ad goes — not the ad itself.
Just like the phone call, Google is just providing the platform.
In the above phone call the phone company are not an actor in the crime, the criminal did not ring up the receptionist to ask her to assist him in an illegal act. In the case in India the advertiser did contact and negotiate with Google to place an illegal ad.
No, there’s no ringing them up and asking their assistance. There’s just logging on and placing the ad. Just like picking up the phone and making a call.
The fact that they seemingly can’t be bothered filtering ads as it would be tiresome and expensive is, as you often state in other arguments, a business decision, and one that usually works well for them.
NOt at all. It’s a question of liability. If you’re providing the platform it makes NO sense to put the liability on the platform provider, rather than the actual user.
At the end of the day Google and co are taking money from someone to assist them actively in an illegal act, if they weren’t giant corporations and were just people on the street they would be called “accessory” or possibly even “accomplice”
No, they wouldn’t. Because they’d say, why do you blame Ford because a Ford was used as a get away car?
Google has NO active participation in the crime. It’s just providing the tools that someone else used illegally.
Re: Re: Re:2 If you are making money, you are responsible
No, there’s no ringing them up and asking their assistance. There’s just logging on and placing the ad. Just like picking up the phone and making a call.
Sorry Mike but no – the fact that They have decided to automate their sales process does not absolve them from the fact that a contract is taking place. The example is wrong in my opinion, this is less like an individual phone call than negotiating a whole new phone contract
In a phone call the conversation takes place between two parties without the active involvement of the phone company in anything other than the provision of the phone service, for which they have no way of knowing what it is being used for – the criminal act if any is not usually the actual call. In this case the criminal act is the display of an advert and Google, by providing the facilities, entering into a contract (automated or not) and displaying the advert is actively involved, they are not just the provider of the phone service, but in effect also the recipient of the call (again automated or not)
I don’t dispute the fact that the people placing the adverts are also breaking the law, but in most legal systems provision of a service used to commit a crime where you have prior knowledge of this also lands you in a lot of trouble. If you come to me and say “can I borrow your lockpicks, I want to break into my bosses house” and I lend you them then I am in a lot of bother if this ever gets traced back
No, they wouldn’t. Because they’d say, why do you blame Ford because a Ford was used as a get away car? No one would say Ford should be blamed – but if Ford were asked to produce a car specifically for India which displayed an advert on its side for Sex Selection products and they did so then yes they would be breaking the law. Also if Ford were approached and asked to design and produce a car customised specifically for a particular getaway and they did so knowingly, then yes – most legal systems would prosecute as far as I’m aware
There comes a point where a business has to be aware of the legal restrictions in place within the areas it operates and respect these, if the company makes a business decision to reduce costs and automates to the point where it can no longer retain effective oversight in such matters then it has to be prepared for the ramifications
We like our government...........
I am with my government on this one. First of all they are NOT being “sued” for money (it is called PIL, public interest litigation). That culture hasnt started yet and hope we never import that western evil mentality of suing everybody that moves!
If you already dont know sex selection is a very serious problem in India. Current sex ratio is in 920s (/1000 males). That is equivalent to one of the biggest genocides ever equivalent to 40 million lives.
If these companies are making profit from these ads is it too much to ask them filter these kind of ads? (Again court is not asking for money. Will most likely result in asking those companies to do some more work)
Re: We like our government...........
If you already dont know sex selection is a very serious problem in India. Current sex ratio is in 920s (/1000 males). That is equivalent to one of the biggest genocides ever equivalent to 40 million lives.
That’s fine, but the LIABLE party should be those actually posting the ads.
Not Google/Microsoft/Yahoo. Blaming them is blaming the wrong party.
If these companies are making profit from these ads is it too much to ask them filter these kind of ads? (Again court is not asking for money. Will most likely result in asking those companies to do some more work)
What does profit have to do with it? Again, a telephone company makes a profit off people using the phones for criminal activities, but no one expects them to “filter” criminal calls out.
Re: Re: We like our government...........
Mike,
Once more – these products are legal in a range of countries.
The companies advertise on Google.
When advertising on Google can one restrict the countries in which one’s ads appear? If SO then I can agree with you. If NOT then I think it’s up to Google/MS/Yahoo to offer some way to restrict where one’s ads show up.
Re: Re: Re: We like our government...........
Of course – if these companies are shipping the banned products to India that is something completely different and they are directly liable.
Still – the law is about advertising and if they cannot restrict where their ads appear then they should have no liability.
Re: We like our government...........
> Current sex ratio is in 920s (/1000 males).
> That is equivalent to one of the biggest
> genocides ever equivalent to 40 million lives.
That’s not equivalent to genocide at all, under even the most liberal definition of the word.
Genocide is the actual killing of people.
Sex selection kills no one. It’s not even an abortion. It’s just using technology to guide the development of the fetus toward one gender or the other. Regardless of which sex is chosen by the parents, a new child is born, so there can’t be any “genocide”.
This seems to be the new method of debate: just throw in hyperbolic and dramatic terms like “genocide”, which ratchet up emotion, regardless of whether they’re even remotely applicable to the issue at hand.
Re: Re: We like our government...........
“Genocide is the actual killing of people. Sex selection kills no one. It’s not even an abortion.”
Actually, in India it most likely is. The way sex selection works here is that once a couple crazy for a male child gets to know the sex of the foetus (with the help of a diagnostic centre that performs illegal ultrasound and amniocentesis), they either abort the child then and there if it’s a girl (which is arguably more ‘humane’, extreme emphasis on ‘arguably’), or else kill her as soon as she’s born by bashing her head in etc. (Ugh. How sick can some people be? To what depths of depravity can human beings descend to?)
There’s no “technology to guide the development of the fetus toward one gender or the other” as you put it, unless it’s a very rich couple indeed. 99% still do their sex selection the old-fashioned way (sorry for sounding so callous).
Do you still think the terms used were needlessly hyperbolic and dramatic? Think before you speak (type), my friend.
Part of doing business in India
If you want to do business in India then you have to do it under Indian law. Not all that different from any other country in that respect.
The feasibility of expecting a company to police their customers is something left up to the courts and feasibility doesn’t change any expectation that they will.
While it may be part of the enforcement culture to go after the big foreign guys first or at least make more noise when they do; they do also go after the people who are actually breaking the law, not only the big guys that may arguably have facilitated it.
And in a case like this at least going after Y!, M$ and GOOG gets some publicity that it is illegal to abort a foetus just because it happens to be female.
Re: Part of doing business in India
If you want to do business in India then you have to do it under Indian law. Not all that different from any other country in that respect.
And therefore we aren’t allowed to point out how dumb the law is? And how it targets the wrong party?
Sorry. I don’t buy it.
Re: Re: Part of doing business in India
Of course you’re entitled to an opinion.
I don’t disagree that attempting to deputise ISPs and content providers as proxy law enforcement bodies is fundamentally floored. One of the best things about leaving my old company was that I wouldn’t have to deal with that sh*t again.
But my point is that M$, Y! and GOOG have been here before and will be here again. This is just part of the cost of doing business in India and if it was too burdensome they wouldnt be there.
Enough with big computers...
Why do you expect responsibility from big oil, big cigarette, big studios, big automobiles etc but not from big computers/internet??
If you already dont know sex selection is a very serious problem in India. Current sex ratio is in 920s (/1000 males). That is equivalent to one of the biggest genocides ever equivalent to 40 million lives.
And they waste their time on suing Internet companies instead of dealing with the real issues?
Re: Re:
And they waste their time on suing Internet companies instead of dealing with the real issues?
What!? An Indian national already said that it wasn’t being sued. It’s public interest litigation.
We both know how easy it is to access information on the internet. There looking at the proliferation of information that seems very important to the sustainability of the county. (920/1000 males!!!) Sure you can’t really t think reviewing the impact the 3 largest portals to the internet have on this vital problem is a waste of time?
Re: Re:
Read the article properly dude!
It is not the government which is pursuing these companies. A private citizen filed a complaint in Supreme Court and the court subpoenaed those companies.
What is wrong with this complaint?
Re: Re: Re:
“What is wrong with this complaint?”
The problem is that an advertising platform is being sued for the actions of their advertisers, despite neither having vetted the advert nor creating it.
If this private citizen is interested in making a difference, why do they not prosecute either:
a) The company who placed the ad?
b) The company who is actually offering the service being advertised?
The only realistic answer is that because Google, etc. are bigger targets, they’re easier to attack. No investigation necessary to find out who the real culprits are, and presumably a nice cash payout if they win.
It’ll make no difference of course – the people offering these services will continue to do so with or without advertising on these platforms. It’s yet another person trying to look as though they’re doing something without really doing anything. That it’s not the government in this case is irrelevant.
Get real.
I think nations with stricter censorship rules need to lighten up. The Internet was created with the intention of sharing knowledge and information. This includes the good with the bad (and ads are hardly the worst thing on the net!)
Besides, Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are all American based companies and should not be held to anybody else’s standards. If the other countries don’t like it let them invest in the filtering of information. It shouldn’t be our [american companies] job to police the policies of foreign nations.
Re: Get real.
Besides, Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are all American based companies and should not be held to anybody else’s standards. If the other countries don’t like it let them invest in the filtering of information. It shouldn’t be our [american companies] job to police the policies of foreign nations.
So your saying that because it’s an American country they shouldn’t have to comply with local laws? You feel that the countries should change their laws to accommodate foreign corporations? Or that countries should allow foreign companies that are doing business in their country to ignore current laws?
ADS
It’s not what’s out there, it’s what individuals subscribe to.
Government is way out of control.
Freedom is no Government.
Government means you can only do what the powers in control say you can do.
Re: ADS
We do elect our own government in our country. I dont know about you!
Oh, yes! You are from a country who elect the stupidest person so that they can get cheap oil to run their SUVs (which are often used by a single person with no load)!!!
I think nations with stricter censorship rules need to lighten up. The Internet was created with the intention of sharing knowledge and information. This includes the good with the bad (and ads are hardly the worst thing on the net!)
Yes, it’s really just a network with open access, the government of India is just as much to blame since they allow internet access as Google would be.
They choose to participate in accessing this Network, there’s good and bad out there, if they can’t deal with the bad – they can create their own or block access altogether – I mean, doesn’t the Government there have some type of ‘ok’ to the Internet in general? If so, they share the responsibility in all of this.
(which are often used by a single person with no load)!!!
Yes, that’s horrible, it’s like using a PC that could provide internet access for 15 people, yet only a single person is using it! Or living in a house that could hold 40 people, yet only 4 or 5 (or less) are living there!!
Or maybe a person who believe all the Media hype about Global Warming and this and that.
Glad I don’t buy into all that B.S.
Re: Re:
I guess you are used to abundance. Well….. wait for your chinese overlords (who practically own your country) to come and kick your ass.
And just to pre-empt the ‘no way, global warming is REAL’ replies…
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/is-there-a-cold-future-just-lying-in-wait-for-us-13938036.html
Re: Re:
I guess you are:
* Republican
* Watch FOX
* Like Bill O’Reily
* Some kind of new born christian
* Call everyone who doesnt agree with u ass “Commies”
…….. great!!
With your kind of people your country doesnt need any new enemies. Good luck with your self annihilation!
Oh heck no. No way I buy this ‘party’ crap, where they purport there’s ‘two’ parties. It’s all one big dump on the people.
It’s not Dem vs. Repub, it’s Politicians vs. the People. Is that so hard to see?
Really?
Is it just me or...
Is it just me or did this turn into a flame war? International law is something very difficult to deal with. Sex selection products may be illegal in India, and I’m sure there’s perfect reasoning for that, but they are legal in most of the world, and if people are expecting google.com (as opposed to a country specific version of google, like google.fr or google.de) to censor anything that offends anyone, well, they’re stupid and don’t understand Internet architecture. This isn’t about cigarettes or SUV’s – this is about someone applying a local standard to information created and maintained in other countries, which your country has access to.
Personally, I’d just block the whole India IP range from Microsoft, Yahoo and Google and be done with it. 🙂
Re: Is it just me or...
“Is it just me or did this turn into a flame war?”
“Personally, I’d just block the whole India IP range from Microsoft, Yahoo and Google and be done with it. :)”
And how, pray tell, doesn’t that final comment of yours feed the flames? 🙂
FWIW, I think the lawsuit is frivolous and am confident it will be thrown out of court. But it does highlight some important lacunae in Indian law. I also hope the guy/group filing the PIL will do so once again, but this time against the actual companies that conduct such illegal business in India. Let’s see how that goes, eh?
When advertising on Google can one restrict the countries in which one’s ads appear? If SO then I can agree with you. If NOT then I think it’s up to Google/MS/Yahoo to offer some way to restrict where one’s ads show up.
I still wouldn’t agree. Google offers ‘x’ service than includes ‘these items’. If a ‘customer’ (Government, individual, etc) doesn’t like it, they do not have to participate. There’s no reason – technically or otherwise, that a Government cannot block Google if they deem it’s ‘objectionable’.
So the Government obviously approves the use of Google within it’s borders – why are they not equally to blame?
Sex selection does not “guide the development of the fetus.” Once sperm hits egg, the decision has been made if the blastocyst in question is XX or XY. At conception, that’s it.
While I’m quite sure you could overexpose XX fetuses (fetii?) to testosterone, you might get an intersex person (on the outside), but it wouldn’t be the same. There’s three separate waves of sex hormones which the fetus undergoes which help change the plumbing a little, the brain, and so forth, but we currently do not have the technology to do that on our own. Occasionally, you’ll get an XY which is “immune” to testosterone, and you’ll have an AIS female – passes the “duck test” for femininity, until you check for the presence of Barr bodies and/or do an abdominal MRI.
Sex selection techniques now involve the selection of X or Y sperm, getting a batch of frozen embryos and deciding which to implant, or selective termination of the pregnancy (i.e., abortion).
In any case, what’s dumb here is that India thinks Google can magically determine where Indian users are. There’s no handy, very accurate map of IP-address-to-country. DNS doesn’t do the job entirely, either.
Remember Belgium’s (I think it was Belgium) little issue with Google a few years back? I suggested that they basically turn off Google.Be and leave a nice note up – “Our services have been suspended until your government stops suing us.” I warned at the time that, if Google tried to play nice, other countries would line up to sue. Sure enough, they have.
Flame ON
How about the Government of India grows some balls and start treating women with the respect and dignity they deserve, and perhaps parents wouldn’t be looking for methods to make sure they have a son…
Face facts, men and women are NOT treated equally anywhere, but India is one of the most repressive cultures for females. There have been stories where Men rape and abuse women and then claim that it was because the woman didn’t have her face covered and they just couldn’t help themselves (and the women were the ones who were punished).
If I lived in India, I wouldn’t want to bring a daughter into that oppressive, discriminatory, disrespectful type of atmosphere either, so perhaps the real issue isn’t sex selection methods, perhaps it’s the environment that doesn’t treat the sexes equally in the first place that’s the problem.
But then what do I know, I’m just a redneck hick.
Re: Flame ON
“India is one of the most repressive cultures for females.”
Really? I might well be feeding a redneck troll here, but can’t help myself.
While I’m in no way trying to gloss over how shamefully women are treated in many places here, do NOT presume to tell me that women here are on the whole treated much better than the way the Taliban or other purely Islamic nations treat their women.
You are indeed a redneck hick and that’s why even if you wanted to (thank God you don’t), we wouldn’t allow you to bring up your daughter in our country, ‘cos we could do with less garbage around here.
Stick to the damn topic and stop mouthing off about things you know little to nothing about. There are enough sane people in our country to slowly but surely effect the much needed social changes. We certainly don’t need you to tell us how to better ourselves.
However, in the spirit of trash-talking that we seem to be in, what the hell was your country up to when it was barely 60 years old (in 1837)? Giving the Red Indians (American Indians to be PC) loads of money? (yeah, we all know how that went down.) Allowing women to vote? (Oh wait, didn’t it take you a measly 144 years to do that?)
Re: Re: Flame ON
Read that as: “…do NOT presume to tell me that women here are on the whole treated much worse than the way the Taliban or many other (purely Islamic) nations treat their women.”
Damn crappy mistake! Reversed the whole meaning of what I wanted to say. >:(
Re: Re: Re: Flame ON
And before you say anything, no, that wasn’t a Freudian slip! 😛
Google India
Google under no condition should be doing anything to reveal anyones identity unless someone is highly suspected of committing a heinous crime. If Google needs to pull out of India then it will be India’s problem not Googles.
Any company that wants to do business in a country should follow the laws of that country. I doubt the American government would stand for racist ads showing up on any of their ISP’s sites. Nor would the ISP be sitting quitely when such ads are on their site.
When you have lived in a specific country it would be easier to understand why they have certain laws. The laws are not open for people of other countries to say whether those laws are ok or not, especially when the laws are written to try and address country specific issues and to help correct problems.
Learn about what affects another country before critisizing it and it’s laws.
i need helpe
Dear Respected One,
I am Jesnica Morus, I am just 20 years old, the only Daughter of my late Mr.and Mrs. Kaben Morus, My father was a highly reputable business magnate who operated in the capital of Ivory coast during his days, before he was poisoned to death by his jealousy brother while on a family meeting in the village.
It is sad to say that my father passed away mysteriously. But God knows the truth! My mother died when I was just 6 years old, and since then my father took me so special.
However, before my father gave up to the ghost on the 30th June 2004 in a private hospital here in Abidjan, he secretly wave to me to his bedside and whispered in my ear that he deposited the sum of (USD$12,000,000) in a trust Bank here in Abidjan ivory coast that he used my name as the only daughter for the next of kin in depositing the funds.
He also made me to understand that his brother was responsible for his death and instructed me to look for a foreigner who will help me transfer this fund and invest it wisely abroad and to prove it all, six month after my Father’s death his brother sold all his properties including our family house.
Dear, I am honourably seeking for your assistance to help me sign-out the funds from the Bank and transfer this funds to your country possibly through your account or ask the Bank to deliver the funds to your account, you will stand as the guardian to this funds while I further my education in your country.
The death of my father actually brought sorrow to my life and I wished to invest under your care with your advice please. I am in a sincere desire of your humble assistance in this regards o this, your suggestions and ideas will be highly regarded. Now permit me to ask
these few questions:-
1. Can you honestly help me as your partner?
2. Can I completely trust you that you can not betray me?
3. What percentage of the total amount in question will be good for you after the money is in
your control while I come over and finalize my education?
Please, consider this and get back to me as soon as possible Immediately I confirmed you willingness then I will send to you my picture and identification. And I will need your own pictures as well.
I wait to hear from you soon.
Your’s Sincerly Girl,
Jesnica Morus.
sperm for sell within 24hours
Hi
thanks for reading my mail.i am ready to sell my sperm for money making within an hours,so if interested,then mail back an have it.
There is medication that changes your CHILD’S GENDER???
And that is advertised on google???
Some people really need to be wiped off earth… you are disgusting. Selling chemicals that changes your kids… You are literally worse then hitler