When It Comes To Free Speech, Who Is Allowed To Say What?


In the Barbershop, NPR's Michel Martin takes up the issue of free speech with Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times, Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner and journalist Jeff Yang.


Now it's time for the Barbershop. That's where we check in with interesting people about what's in the news and what's on their minds. And today, we want to talk about a couple of issues in the news that might not seem related, but they all get to the heart of a question that is roiling our public life, and that is, who is allowed to say what?

Last Thursday, CNN fired contributor Marc Lamont Hill after he made a speech at the United Nations about Palestinian rights which critics interpreted as anti-Semitic. Also this week, representative-elect Rashida Tlaib is being criticized for saying she supports the BDS movement. Now, that stands for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. And finally, yesterday - and this is the one that I understand people might not think is related but bear with us - comedian Kevin Hart bowed out of hosting the Oscars after anti-gay tweets of his surfaced from 2011.

Joining us to talk about all this - Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner. He's here with us in our Washington, D.C., studios.


PHILIP KLEIN: Thank you.

MARTIN: On the line with us from Los Angeles, journalist and author Jeff Yang.

Welcome back.

JEFF YANG: Thank you.

MARTIN: And Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times is with us from NPR's bureau in New York.

Michelle Goldberg, welcome to you as well.


MARTIN: And, Michelle, I'm going to start with you because you've been writing quite a lot about this, and it addresses a couple of these stories. The column you wrote most recently said that anti-Zionism isn't the same as anti-Semitism. But you are making a bigger point that criticism of the BDS movement on its face isn't anti-Semitism. And what's the difference in your view?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think the idea that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism or is tantamount to anti-Semitism depends on conflating Israel with the Jewish people and treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people. And I just don't think that that's true. And I also don't think that the leaders of Israel think that that's true.

I mean, you constantly see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu making alliances of convenience with right-wing nationalists in Europe who come from traditionally anti-Semitic parties. I think he understands that being pro-Israel and pro-Jewish are not equivalent. And I would say the same thing as well. And then I also think that, just given the United States' relationship with Israel, there are many reasons beyond anti-Semitism why Americans would be particularly concerned with that relationship.

MARTIN: OK. And what about the Marc Lamont Hill situation?

GOLDBERG: So I certainly wouldn't defend Marc Lamont Hill being fired. But I also wouldn't defend what he said because that specific phrase about from the river to the sea - there's a reason that that kind of terrifies a lot of people, and that, for a lot of people, they imagine that they're talking about driving the Jews into the sea as opposed to having a binational state for two people.

And, given the fact that I have been - I think that people need to be extremely alert to the dog whistles coming out of this administration from the right, I find it hard to explain away what I think is going to also sound like a dog whistle to a lot of people coming from the left.

MARTIN: Phil, let me go to you. I know that you disagree. Talk more about your point of view.

KLEIN: Well, I think it's very clear to say something - that there is this idea that when people point out the link between anti-Semitism and being anti-Israel, the response is often, oh, well, just because you criticize Israel doesn't mean you're anti-Semitic. And that's true.

However, what we've seen in the past several years is a broadening interpretation of what's seen as acceptable criticism of Israel. You look at - on college campuses, for instance. Attacks against Jews are nine times more likely when there is some sort of BDS group on campus. So there are a lot of anti-Semites out there who are perfectly clear on making the link between Jews and Israel.

MARTIN: But the point that - I think what we're trying to understand here is, in this particular case, I think the criticism of the firing of Marc Lamont Hill is the argument that the conversation is actually being narrowed, and that the - so that's what I'm going to ask you to address.

KLEIN: Yeah. So let's talk about what Marc Lamont Hill actually said because, first of all, I didn't actually call for him to be fired. I did raise the question by saying CNN in the past has fired on-air personalities for off-air statements. So I asked the question of, where does CNN draw the line in terms of what's acceptable and what's not acceptable? In the case of Marc Lamont Hill, the phrase from the river to the sea is eliminationist rhetoric. It quite literally means create a Palestinian state stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which currently encompasses Israel.

In the same speech, he also said that we can't fetishize nonviolence and sort of said that we have to support resistance. And the problem that we have here is that there is this tendency to other-ize (ph) Israeli Jews. And, somehow, you can say whatever you want. You can talk about eliminating people. Jews in Israel are somehow expendable.

MARTIN: Can I just bring it back to when speech is policed and who gets to make - who gets to police it? And I want to jump to you. Are you ready to participate...

YANG: I do.

MARTIN: ...Here?

YANG: Yeah.

MARTIN: You want to jump in here?

YANG: So I guess my point here is to the question of who gets to say certain things. The statement that Marc Lamont Hill made - he was very quick to clarify and to state, I am not making a statement that's intentionally framed around attacking Jews, right? And yet he was fired for his statement. I wonder - because I feel like CNN and other media platforms have elevated many people who have said even more noxious and straightforwardly anti-Semitic things in the past who do not get the same kind of condemnation and results.

And, you know, frankly, it's hard not to say, like, hey, you know, Marc Lamont Hill is an outspoken person on the left who's African-American. And that somehow makes him more of a target perhaps. I - you know, it's hard not to see that there isn't a lack of parallel playing field when statements like this do get made.

MARTIN: Well, this is where I wanted to pivot - and, again, I'm realizing that you know, maybe this is a bad idea - but to pivot to the Kevin Hart example because he was asked to host the Oscars. And then, when these anti-gay tweets emerged from some years ago, he apologized, but he was still asked to step aside.

GOLDBERG: But he didn't really apologize.

YANG: No, he didn't (laughter).

MARTIN: So that's the question - well, nor did Marc Lamont Hill apologize for what he said. But he said, by way of clarification, I'm not saying what you are accusing me of saying.

GOLDBERG: You know, I feel like this conversation can kind of very quickly devolve into a sort of weaponized whataboutism (ph). You know, and I feel that kind of rhetorical turn is often used to shut down criticism of Israel or delegitimize criticism of Israel, right? I mean, if you kind of say that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is intolerable, somebody will quickly say - you know, with some justification - you know, what about the Uighurs in China? What about the - you know, the ethnic cleansing in Burma? And it's certainly true that there are, you know, terrible things being done to minority populations in many, many parts of the world.

But the thing about speech is that - and the reason that I feel like we're in such a difficult position right now is that, on the one hand, I don't like this culture of people, you know, misspeaking or saying one thing out of turn or tweeting one thing that's unfortunate and then quickly, you know, kind of being disappeared from the public discourse - you know, losing their jobs. I think that there needs to be more latitude for people to make a mistake.

And the thing about both of these instances is that in both of these instances, I'm not really sure that they were mistakes, right? It wasn't somebody kind of being misunderstood. It wasn't somebody saying something untoward in a moment of heated debate. If you - I mean, Kevin Hart - if Kevin Hart had simply apologized and said, you know, that these comments were, you know, not who he is anymore, this whole thing would have gone away very quickly. And, you know, his comments were really quite cruel and quite vicious.

KLEIN: Yeah.

GOLDBERG: To have somebody like that headlining...

MARTIN: Well, he said...

GOLDBERG: ...Something like the Oscars, which is, you know, a place full of gay people where, you know...


GOLDBERG: ...Gay people have traditionally found a haven. There is something discordant.

MARTIN: But to your point - I'd like to get back to your earlier point. And I'd like to ask each of you to address your earlier point. Are - your point, Philip, to sort of litigate the idea that if a person states these ideas, are they then excluded from the public discourse? Or is there a way to bring them into public discourse in such a way that you can have a conversation about their point?

KLEIN: I believe in free speech. People could say whatever they want. But freedom of speech and open expression also means if I find something anti-Semitic, I can say, this is anti-Semitic. This is eliminationist rhetoric. This is - calling for the deaths of Jews. So I don't think that you could really separate those two things and just say, oh, yeah, let's have friendly discourse about this. And, no, I think that that's out of the bounds of friendly discourse. Does he...

MARTIN: So I think you are saying he should have lost his job.

KLEIN: No. I don't care. I'm not making policy at CNN. But the idea that somehow CNN doesn't allow criticism of Israel is absurd.

MARTIN: Do you have anything to say about Kevin Hart?

KLEIN: To me, all I'm saying is that, fine, let him lose the gig. But just recognize that basically, with social media, it's very easy to create the appearance of widespread outrage toward things. But just realize that if we're in this environment, there are some cases where people are going to get fired for things where you might think, well, that's completely a reasonable point and that there is going to be a narrowing of discussion.

But I just don't think that it's fair to just conflate all of the situations together and say, oh, well, Marc Lamont Hill got fired for saying controversial things about Israel. No, let's talk about the substance of what he said and why people found it objectionable.

MARTIN: OK. That's a good place to sit down. That was Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times, Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner and journalist and author Jeff Yang.

Thank you all so much for talking with us. Obviously, there's a very great deal to talk about. And - but you've given - you've all given us quite a lot to think about. So thank you all so much for talking with us.

GOLDBERG: Thank you.

KLEIN: Thank you.

YANG: Thank you, Michel.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Hamas was put in charge in Gaza by a contrivance of the United States State Department: Condoleezza Rice and Israel Prime Minister Aerial Sharon, not by the will of the Palestinian people.  And it was the White man-god Lord Balfour that gave Palestine to the Jews as a homeland instead making sure that the Jews were treated humanely on the European continent.


Donald Trump promised (as George W. Bush had promised) to be the best friend Israel ever had.  A promise that has led to the longest war in US history.  Friends like this Jews do not need as Anne Frank stated:


“What one Christian does is his own responsibility; what one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews.”


Now Israel and American Jews find themselves at the center of a genuine conspiracy, not The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that threatens the United States government itself—and afterwards, “What happens to the Jews—Zionists or otherwise?”  The Shock of the election of Barack Obama as president in 2008 prevented the former threatened American Holocaust—brought on by the Nouveau riches' plunges on Wall Street.  Trump, a mad-man in the White House, may not be able to prevent the second American attempt.  Like Caligula, he may cheer it on.

Trump Returns To Familiar Complaints During Thanksgiving Call With U.S. Troops


President Trump held a teleconference with U.S. troops overseas on Thursday to thank them for their service. He also used the call to talk about border security and immigration.


Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

St George News

Mia Love rips Trump, says GOP fails to embrace minorities

Surrounded by her family, Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, talks about election results in the 4th Congressional District at the Utah Republican Party headquarters Nov. 26, 2018, in Salt Lake City. | Associated Press photo by Rick Bowmer, St. George News

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Defeated Republican Congresswoman Mia Love delivered a sharp rebuke Monday to President Donald Trump and her party’s relationship with black Americans.

U.S. Rep. Mia Love conducts a press conference at the Utah Republican Party headquarters on Nov. 26, 2018, in Salt Lake City. | Photo by Evan Cobb/The Daily Herald via Associated Press, St. George News

Love, the first and only black Republican woman in Congress, spoke for the first time since she was narrowly defeated by Democrat Ben McAdams for the suburban Salt Lake City seat.

She responded to Trump’s jab the day after the election that she lost the race because she “gave me no love, and she lost.” The claim came during a post-Election Day news conference where he also called out other members of his party who he said failed to fully embrace him.

“This gave me a clear vision of his world as it is. No real relationships, just convenient transactions,” she said Monday.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Trump’s comments reflect Republicans’ larger failure to fully embrace minority communities, driving them to the Democratic Party, Love said.

“Because Republicans never take minority communities into their home and citizens into their homes, and into their hearts, they stay with Democrats and bureaucrats in Washington because they do take them home, or at least make them feel like they have a home,” she said.

Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, Democratic candidate for Utah’s 4th Congressional District, speaks to supporters during an election night party, in Salt Lake City, Nov. 6, 2018, | Associated Press file photo by Alex Goodlett, St. George News

While she was ousted, Democrats gained new black members of Congress and women this election, she pointed out.

“This is a matter of fact, that Republicans lost in this regard,” she said.

Love said she believes conservative policies are the best way to lift people out of poverty, but those messages have a harder time reaching minority voters.

“The problem is not the policy; it’s that we are never taken into hearts and homes,” she said.

Love says her defeat means she’s now “unleashed” to speak her mind. She declined to say if she will run again, or detail plans for the future.

She also took a shot at her opponent on Monday, calling McAdams a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and decrying the “horrible” criticism of her record in the hard-fought race.

The McAdams campaign said he appreciated a congratulatory call she placed to him over the weekend and “it’s time to put the election behind us.”

Vote-counting was drawn out in the razor-thin race, and in the end McAdams defeated Love by fewer than 700 votes. He was well-known in the district as the mayor of Salt Lake County and pitched himself as a moderate who could work with Trump, and is vowing to oppose Nancy Pelosi as House speaker.

Love, touted as a rising GOP star when she was elected in 2014, distanced herself from Trump during the race on issues including trade and immigration.

Though Utah is deeply conservative, voters have long been uncomfortable with Trump’s brash style and comments about women and minorities. Her district also includes a large part of the suburbs of blue-leaning Salt Lake City.

Written by LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press.


Abraham Burg empathizes empathy was the most power political-moral promise of the State of Israel, not its Stiff-Neck policy which has historically brought Israel to tragedy.  The unity of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, and Trump's Fascistic dragging the US military into “Make Israel Great Again,” will lead to the same outcome as the Jewish Holocaust.

Burg and other historians declare that the Holocaust began in Africa.  German colonialism's high degree of evil efficiency bested other colonialist, including the settlers of North America just twenty years earlier.  The colonial process is inseparable from comprehending the Shoah (Jewish Holocaust).  The Final solution was launched somewhere in the new world, decades before Auschwitz.  Extermination took place in the New world of North America, and four decades before the Holocaust in Europe, Germany perfected the model in Africa.


Namibia was the introduction to the Shoah; the Herero were Africa's “Jews.”  Although “only” sixty-five thousand (some estimate eighty thousand) Herero were murdered in Namibia, a fraction of all victims of colonial Europe, their annihilation was the first genocide to be carried out by an explicit official order.  Lieutenant-General von Trotha signed the order, with the full backing of the political system and the press of the German Empire.


Von Trotha arrived in Namibia after the rebellion had erupted in order to crush it, and later became Namibia's governor.  As a good organized German general, he left his hot-blooded enthusiasm at home.  Everything was done in hot-blood, with detailed planning and murderous efficiency.  His predecessor, Major Theordor Leutwein, opposed the annihilation of the Herero for economic reasons, because “it is not easy to kill sixty or seventy thousand people.”


Von Trotha had no such worries or compunctions.  He had brought with him the proper imperial spirit.  “I will wipe out rebellious tribes with rivers of blood and rivers of money.  Only following this cleansing can something new emerge,” he wrote in his diary, reported in the German press in 2004, on the hundredth anniversary of the Herero Holocaust.  This spirit was delegated to his subordinates and reported up to his superiors in Berlin: to destroy, slay and exterminate, per Haman's words in the Book of Esther.


Like the American Congress and UN debates, Burg posits that the Reichstag debated the issue several times.  Their view was totally different from the Herero's.  “They are beast...they slaughter innocent white settlers,” explained Graf Ludwig Rowenthlow, according to Haaretz, a hundred years later.  “Africans tear out women's intestines while they are still alive and hang them on trees.”  This was propaganda, typical of any evil colony anywhere in the world.


The same historical report in Haaretz quotes the officer August Bosehart:  “The negro is a wild beast...It can be taught to be respectful only under the gaze of the tamer and his whip.”


Burg declares the State of Israel under the control of Zionism missed the tide that would taken it to Takim.  Burg issues another historicism when states that that in the 1960s superpowers engaged in war games, including Vietnam and the cold war.  Politicians and statement tried to stabilize regions of influence according to their ideologies. 


The rules of the game, as well as manners and conduct, also changed in the West.  Anything went in the 1960s, a complete inversion was suddenly possible.  These were the years in which students turned the academic establishment upside down and in which human rights, women's, and other rights were finally recognized.


Race barriers were removed, and American Jews achieved full equal status, sidestepping overt and covert forms of discrimination, and became the most influential minority in the nation.  The world, it seemed, understood and applied the lessons of the Shoah and negotiated its way to the opposite pole, the pole of love.

Burg declares the State of Israel under the control of Zionism missed the tide that would taken it to Takim.  Burg issues another historicism when states that that in the 1960s superpowers engaged in war games, including Vietnam and the cold war.  Politicians and statement tried to stabilize regions of influence according to their ideologies. 


The rules of the game, as well as manners and conduct, also changed in the West.  Anything went in the 1960s, a complete inversion was suddenly possible.  These were the years in which students turned the academic establishment upside down and in which human rights, women's, and other rights were finally recognized.


Race barriers were removed, and American Jews achieved full equal status, sidestepping overt and covert forms of discrimination, and became the most influential minority in the nation.  The world, it seemed, understood and applied the lessons of the Shoah and negotiated its way to the opposite pole, the pole of love.

In the turbulent '60s, when the world progressed from rigidity and conservatism to creativity and liberalism, Israel moved in the opposite direction.  Israel and significant parts of world Jewry regressed to the fundamentals which we wished to abandon when we entered the modern age.


The other nations of the world abandoned their dark sides, we confined ourselves in a prison of our own.  As they broke their shackles, we locked ourselves behind bars.  The West was our main point of reference; we wanted to be part of it, but when it expanded its consciousness, we consolidated our own.


Jewishness won over Israeliness, the Jewish paranoia won over the newly acquired Israeli confidence.  Severing us from the newly acquired connection to the new era of universalism and love that shone on the horizon.  Only time will tell if we missed the opportunity of our life, since the tide has turned since then, and the West, led by the United States, is huddling once again in conservatism and xenophobia, fleeing terror and scaling down rights and liberties.

Could A Trump Presidency Be Pro-Israel And White Nationalist At The Same Time?


During his campaign for president in March, Donald Trump spoke at the 2016 American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference in Washington, D.C.

Evan Vucci/AP

When Donald Trump shared his views on U.S.-Israel policy with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last March, one line in his speech was greeted with thundering applause.

"We will move the American Embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem!" he shouted.

Previous presidential candidates have made the same promise, but none have kept it, having been warned by their security advisers that it would complicate Middle East negotiations and anger key allies.

Trump and his aides, however, insist he will be the exception. His closest advisers — Breitbart News' former executive chairman Steve Bannon, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner (himself an orthodox Jew) — are all known for their Zionist views.

The people around him and his own statements, in fact, suggest Trump could actually be the most pro-Israel U.S. president in many years.

And yet, many American Jews fear that a Trump presidency could be accommodating of anti-Semitism. After all, they argue, Zionism and anti-Semitism are not necessarily contradictory.

Trump's promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his vow to veto any attempt to impose a settlement on the Israeli government do resonate with many American Jews.

"The general sense is that he has a love of the state of Israel," says Rabbi Mark Dratch, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America. "[The sense is] that he understands the security needs of the state of Israel, he understands the special relationship that exists between the United States and Israel."

Dratch, whose organization represents Orthodox Jewry in the United States, nevertheless says he worries about some of the people around Trump.

"We are concerned that, regardless of Mr. Trump's personal positions, [his] campaign and statements and tweets have opened the door for those with anti-Semitic or anti-minority or anti-black or anti-Muslim feelings in ways that we have not seen for quite a while in this country," Dratch says.

This is the challenge for Trump: Being strongly pro-Israel may not be enough to assure American Jews that his presidency will be good for them.

For one thing, Jews are themselves a minority. Prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants or Muslims or other minorities, whether by Trump or his key supporters, can make Jews nervous.

"When you have a demagogic movement that targets people because of their race or ethnicity or whatever, it's only a matter of time before they come for the Jews," says Jamie Kirchick, a columnist for Tablet magazine, which focuses on Jewish issues. "They may not come for the Jews now, but they will get around to them eventually."

There is also the issue of what Trump does not say. When journalist Julia Ioffe wrote an article critical of Melania Trump, Ioffe was subjected to a barrage of attacks on her, as a Jew. Asked about those anti-Semitic slurs, Trump said only that Ioffe had written an "inaccurate" article. To some, that sounded like he was excusing the anti-Semitic attacks.

"He could have done so much more, from his powerful position, to distance himself [from those attacks] and condemn them," says Jane Eisner, editor-in-chief of the Forward, a newspaper for American Jews.

"I have never called him an anti-Semite," Eisner says, "but his campaign has used anti-Semitic tropes, and he has acknowledged that support. He has encouraged a far-right fringe, and I hope it's just a fringe, to feel empowered and to do the nasty things that they do in his name."

Much of the controversy around Trump's views centers on his choice of Steve Bannon as his strategic adviser. Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart has published anti-feminist, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant articles and won a reputation as being allied with nationalists who explicitly favor white European values.

Bannon, however, does have prominent Jewish supporters. The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, issued a statement last week saying it is "Orwellian" to accuse Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism. "In fact," Klein said, "Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism."

"Every article that I've read in Breitbart about Israel is supportive," Klein told an NPR reporter. "Bannon is an ardent Zionist."

Jamie Kirchick argues, however, that Zionism and anti-Semitism are not necessarily incompatible. White nationalists, he says, point admiringly to Israel's character as a Jewish state and argue that it shows how the country is organized along ethnic and religious lines.

"They see Israel as an ethno-nationalist state, and they want to mimic that in the United States," Kirchick says. "That's what they like. There's also an element that sees the Jews as fighting Islam, basically the tip of the spear against the Muslim hordes."

Bannon was expected to attend a Zionist Organization of America gala dinner in New York on Sunday night. Though not invited, Bannon asked to attend the dinner, and Klein said he would have been welcomed.

In the end, however, Bannon did not show up.


Views: 13

Comment by mary gravitt on December 18, 2018 at 1:41pm

Why has hatred for Jews lasted so long?  The answer may be in why Easter has lasted so long.  My question is why the so-called leader of the free world, a sociopath, and the leader of the Kingdom of Oil, a sociopath, are being allowed to determine the fate and outcome in the Middle East.  Money & Power?  Death.

Common sense has never ruled in the Middle East.  Israel has the bomb—a weapon of mass destruction.  But if they fire it, they and their Arab and Iranian enemies all die.  Suicide is the only answer for religious fundamentalist on both sides relying on re-constructive myths, but what about US?  Even with all the underground protection promised to the Israelis, the land and air itself will be poisoned for years—witness Chernobyl, and the worldwide drift would be catastrophic.

But the constant wag of war ally-ship would be over.  Irredentism will always kill freedom--the land belongs to itself.


You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!


SOTU and lots of hamberders!

Posted by Dicky Neely on January 23, 2019 at 5:11pm 0 Comments

Civil Defense

Posted by Robert B. James on January 23, 2019 at 8:00am 3 Comments

How not to wake up

Posted by koshersalaami on January 23, 2019 at 5:21am 4 Comments

Setting Sail

Posted by Doc Vega on January 22, 2019 at 9:07pm 2 Comments

Cults in Our Midst

Posted by John Manchester on January 22, 2019 at 11:59am 7 Comments

Trump as role model

Posted by Dicky Neely on January 22, 2019 at 10:35am 4 Comments

The Unheard Listen

Posted by Robert B. James on January 22, 2019 at 9:09am 6 Comments

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service