Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission
from the students-shouldn't-be-seen-or-heard dept
Another public university is getting sued over its unconstitutional speech policies. While schools can place some restrictions on students' speech, they can't just carve out blanket exceptions that allow them to treat the First Amendment as a privilege it might extend to students if they've filled out all the proper paperwork.
Jones County Junior College student Mike Brown managed to First Amendment his way right into a conversation with the campus police chief. At this school, you have to ask permission before you can speak to other students, apparently. Here's the write-up from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which is representing Brown in his lawsuit against the college.
In April, Brown and two other individuals held up a sign designed to poll students on the legalization of recreational marijuana. But Jones College administrators quickly summoned campus police because the group hadn’t filled out the proper paperwork — which requires administrative approval and a minimum three-day waiting period before “gathering for any purpose” anywhere on campus.
Brown and another student were taken to the police chief’s office while their friend, a non-student, was escorted to his car and told to leave immediately and not return, or he’d face arrest. Back in the chief’s office, the police chief told Brown he should have known better than to blatantly exercise his free speech rights on campus without administrative approval.
Ah, to be young and living in the Land of the Free, being told by law enforcement that your protected speech needs to be approved ahead of time by a public institution's administrators. Here's the policy that Jones JC has written -- the one being challenged in court. According to this, on-campus speech has a three-day waiting period.
Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose, conducted on the campus of the institution must be scheduled with the President or Vice President of Student Affairs at least 72 hours in advance of the event. (Forms available in Student Affairs) Names of the responsible leaders of the groups must be submitted to the institution at the time of scheduling.
While schools can place a few restrictions on speech to ensure classes aren't interrupted and campus traffic isn't impeded, they cannot simply create blanket prohibitions that require student speech to be pre-approved. As the lawsuit points out, the campus is large and contains many areas where students could gather without disrupting the school day.
JCJC’s property is made up of several hundred acres and its Ellisville campus has many open, publicly accessible areas, outdoor green spaces, sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas and thoroughfares where student speech and expressive activity would not interfere with or disturb access to college buildings or sidewalks, impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or disrupt campus operations or the college’s educational functions. Yet, the entire campus is off-limits to any student expression without the prior approval of JCJC administrators at least three to five days ahead of time through an undefined scheduling process that grants JCJC unfettered and arbitrary discretion to prohibit student expression on the basis of content or viewpoint.
As an added bonus, the student handbook also prohibits "public profanity" on campus, which is about as ridiculous an imposition on free speech as requiring students to ask the school's permission to speak freely. That restriction comes into play in this complaint because a prior run-in with the campus' speech police (who were also literally police officers) involved a "free speech ball" being thrown around by a bunch of adults that administrators claimed was "covered with profanities" during its earlier foray into First Amendment violations.
The lawsuit asks for the court to give the students of JCJC back their First Amendment rights by declaring the school's speech policy unconstitutional. This step was taken because the college decided to ignore FIRE's earlier offering to help it write a more constitutional policy. Now, it gets to defend it in court and explain to judges why it feels it doesn't need to respect students' rights. That should be fun.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, mike brown
Companies: jones county junior college
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There I was, right, proposing to the love of my life where we met at the book store on campus and we get arrested because we didn't get approval first. Now they wont talk to me because this went on their permanent record and can no longer join the police force after college!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I suppose we can call this a “learning experience” for both sides. The students got to learn how fascism works, and now the school gets to learn how the First Amendment and the courts work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Honest questions (as a foreigner I'm trying to understand US free speech rights):
Isn't the first amendment only binding for the government? Or is a public college considered part of that government?
Also, isn't it possible for (for example) a company to restrict free speech in it's offices? And if so, how is that different from a college restricting free speech on it's campus?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose "
So if I'm understanding this right, you need 3 days notice to do things like go on a date, return a borrowed item or help someone else study, WTF!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?
Techdirt constantly claims that corporations have near absolute power to arbitrarily control speech on their "platforms" -- actually meaning the part they voluntarily allowed The Public to use -- even if it's "constitutionally protected" speech.
But here you go on about requiring permission for a gathering -- if are any restrictions on topic, you don't mention.
But physical aspects -- even if only potential -- are not same as limiting speech.
While Techdirt advocates, just yesterday, that corporations are empowered to arbitrarily control ALL speech on "platforms".
HOW can both those be claimed on ONE site within 24 hours?
Now, since is ME -- I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday, which any new reader should look at to get Techdirt's view that off-topic vulgarity is allowable while on-topic dissent should be "hidden" as euphemized -- I can't expect any actual attempt at answer, so just another one of the pieces here that raise inexplicable contradictions.
Bottom line is that Techdirt is for "free speech" which it likes -- the mega-corporations enforce "political correctness" and neo-liberalism -- and in this piece, not coincidentally, Techdirt is exercised by someone not being able to advocate drug use without getting permission for a physical venue. No real conflict if know Techdirt and its pro-corporate and drug-using biases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes - that is what a public college means. Part of the conditions of receiving the funding means they must operate like the government. There are very good historical reasons for that - usually involving bigotted assholes engaged in shenanigans to try to backdoor segregation by funding a "private" college. No - if they receive the funds for an educational purpose they are a public college period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: physical aspects are not same as limiting speech.
Please read my comment below and respond with your rabid ankle-biter yapipng and inimitable stupidity, vulgar as possible, pllease, 'cause that's True Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...
immunity and power, SO are in fact NOT strictly private entities.
The same STATUTE that authorizes BINDS them to observe Constitutional protections -- "free speech" is fairly well-defined by SC cases -- NO MATTER what masnicks and other neo-fascist legalists say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government, and are considered governmental in nature.
There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. For instance, in the College's role as an employer, it can limit the free speech of its employees in some specific employer-ish ways.
You'd do better to look up the ACLU or FIRE than have me go on, though. They've had longer to look at the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To address your headline question, one's a government institution, one's a private corporation. The fact that the first amendment doesn't work the way you think it does isn't really our fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
Who wishes to control other people the most, this site which allows the community to hide comments, or you who wish to force other people to publish your words and keep them in front of other people for free when you want to force your views on others?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A public college is nominally a government institution and is thus bound by law to follow the First Amendment and any related jurisprudence. Facebook is a privately-owned company, so it does not face the same restriction.
And yes, the law empowers Facebook to moderate speech on Facebook, which can (and does) include the right to ban certain kinds of speech and people who violate the Facebook TOS. If the law required Facebook to host all constitutionally protected speech, Facebook would be overrun with spam, bigoted slurs, and racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic propaganda — all of which is constitutionally protected speech.¹
¹ — Feel free to replace every instance of “Facebook” in those sentences with Twitter, Tumblr, or the name of any other privately-owned social interaction network. The song will remain the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"gathering for any purpose"
Every student should fill out a form for every meal they eat at a campus dinning room (unless they eat alone). Every time students meet to study, play games or just hang out, a form should be submitted. Overwhelm the school with paperwork. Let them reap the rewards for their stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To be fair, both political extremities dislike free speech and personal freedoms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
Facebook has rules you need to abide by which also are mitigated by government laws. Is this child safe? No? it goes! Is this discussing illegal activities? Yes? Gone. Is this promoting hate with graphic images and other requirements that the user agreed to when they made this account? Yes? Banned.
Colleges, especially public schools, have the same responsibilities.The issue here is, a very broad rule, that can cover 2 people talking to one another, and not locking all of the people up having a general conversation, as their rule applies, means a bias. These students were not doing anything that anyone can do on public land. They did nothing to the point of blocking passage, interrupting the normal functions of the school. They were arrested because someone disagreed with a sign they had and felt that was a legit reason to arrest them.
What the college did was the equivalent of a white lady calling the cops because a black family next door was having a family BBQ. No laws were being broken, the family were just different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.
That's why Tulsi is suing Google. We all have to stop this censorship and cancel culture. Just remember 3 years ago when you weren't called a "nazi" for advocating for free speech. Free speech wasn't a "right leaning" issue. It was important to everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, this is true: Public, government-owned/operated colleges are bound to observe the protections of the First Amendment.
Privately owned corporations and their platforms for speech, however, are not.
If you can cite a single law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise, well, it’d be a nice change of pace from you running away with your tail between your legs whenever someone asks you to make that citation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The amendments apply to everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You are not allowed to do anything without the permission of the permission culture elite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
My dearest Anna,
A public college is considered by the law to be an arm of the government - the same rules apply there as in the public square. Speech there is protected by the 1st Amendment.
A platform run by a corporation is a private venue - like a private home. Within a private venue, the owner is entitled to make and enforce whatever rules she likes - people who don't like those rules are free to leave or setup their own venue. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply, because it's not the the government that is making the rules.
And therein lies the difference. There is no contradiction in Techdirt's position.
The difference between the rules for private vs. public venues exists for the good reason that it's far more difficult to leave a country (or setup a new one) than it is to leave (or create) a private venue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity. The Klan can say all the racial slurs in the world so long as they aren’t calling for the deaths of Black people; the government can’t do shit about that. And if a platform’s owners/operators want to allow that speech on said platform, the government can’t do shit about that, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is amazing how some folk can be told many many times exactly how they are wrong about the First Amendment and yet they refuse to accept the fact. What so these trolls hope to accomplish, if anything at all.
Most rational people, upon facing the facts, will change their attack vector(s) to coincide with reality thus producing arguments that address the facts rather than their fantasies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can advocate for the right to speak freely without condoning/defending the actual speech of bigots or thinking they deserve an audience. I believe a Klan member should have the right to shout his racist bullshit on a street corner — but that doesn’t mean I have to listen, and it doesn’t mean I can’t counter their speech with my own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.
Free speech means that the government cannot stop you from publishing your speech ate your expense. It also means that the government cannot force a company to publish your speech at the companies expense, and neither can you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
Techdirt doesn't advocate that at all, TD only points out that what the law says. If you think that is in error, please cite the relevant law that forbids anyone from moderating speech on their private property?
If you don't know the difference between a private entity and a government entity there is no hope for you at all.
Bottom line is that you make a lot of claims what Techdirt like and don't like, but when someone points out WITH citations that you are wrong you never seem to want to rebut it - instead you slink off since your whole argumentative technique is based on dishonesty and cowardliness.
And in this piece, you didn't even take the time to read and comprehend what was written. Perhaps you can answer me this, what where the students doing when they where carted off by the police?
I don't expect an answer but it would be fun to see you squirm and distort what really happened to avoid looking like an ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This must be China's model of education. What's next social credit system on campuses? I shouldn't give them any ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In a public private partnership the latter gets to rule the roost until the public becomes aware of how much freedom they lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People". You could ask him for a citation of these "ancient customs", but (from what I recall) he thinks that we probably already know what he's talking about and that we only ask these questions to waste his time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From the settlement will be born a new campus tradition, the annual Profanity Ball.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
"So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?" ---Prof. Anna T. Laced
Facebook is not subsidized by the government and the college is a physical manifested form of government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IIRC, hate speech can be used as evidence of a hate crime, something that was already a crime but was given a harsher penalty than normal because of the motive (homophobia/racism/etc). Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You are right, most rational people will realize this - but AFAIK trolls aren't rational unless we are talking about the pure trolls that just want to rile people up for their own lulz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That doesn’t make the speech itself illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I hear they’re the biggest balls of them all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.
Zof,why is the first amendment so hard for you to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Isn't that just a way of saying whatever I want it to be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Stone, The comment you replied to said that exact thing:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So it did. My bad. 👍
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Three day waiting period
Waiting periods are fine for firearms, so why can't we have them for speeches too? The wrong speech could incite far more violence than a single gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Just because you choose not to use lube when Ajit Pai bends you over doesn't mean the rest of us have to go without. Or let Ajit Pai bend us over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Try not to choke on that Verizon-flavored corporate cock, blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I find it interesting that in the UK, racist speech is actually illegal. You can get arrested and imprisoned just for saying something deemed racist. Not that I want to say any such thing, but I'm glad we have a guarantee of free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Three day waiting period
Please wait three days before spouting such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The idea of the government telling you exactly when you can speak already has a name. We call it fascism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My balls are always bouncing to the left and to the right. Its my belief that my balls should be held overnight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government"
Not so much anymore. The main reason for the rising cost of education, in the us, is the continual decline of government funding at both fed & state level.
"There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. "
Free speech zone - lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag
[Blue offers no facts in his Complaints to support his propositions ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.
[Zof the Liar asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yeah; according to their handbook, I would have been breaking the rules whenever I wasn't in class but was on campus. My friends and I always arranged where we'd meet between classes, and sometimes we'd even <gasp> go for lunch!
Since I was living on campus, this also meant that I wouldn't have been allowed to invite friends over or organize study groups.
But the block parties with heavy drinking would have been OK, as they always provided 3 days notice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Study groups are just a bunch of pirates stealing from the Intellectual Property Owners. All that learning, exchanging ideas, discussing issues - well it's all just a ruse to cover their pirate activites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm intrigued by "serenade" being listed. Was there a big problem with unauthorized serenading in the past? It would be hilarious if everyone protesting this did so in serenade form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People".
We ask him all the time. But since he's just copying bits and pieces of other people's ideas he can't answer, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Careful What You Wish For
Seriously... "gathering for any purpose"
This is kinda begging for a DDOS attack. Flood the office with a request for every meeting, party, meal, date, class, practice, sleepover, and handshake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I haven't seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Collage? free speech?? BACK to the 60's..
What is considered a GROUP?
A collage that doesnt ALLOW the ability to have FREE speech??
Wow, this hasnt happened since the 60's...
AND..you really have a Police base INSIDE the School?
http://www.jcjc.edu/campuspolice/
There is no info here saying they are REAL police.
And as for kicking someone Off the grounds, they can ASK, but the best recourse is to call the cops and has to restrict them..You can not DEMAND he stay away.
Jones County Agricultural High School
Jones County Junior College
In 2018, the college was rebranded as Jones College. The school is still legally called Jones County Junior College.
I will bet this is a State college. as its only a 2 year and an Asc. degree.
Its not privately Owned..
So they have to follow State laws, really well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I haven't seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.
Since Blue Balls can't use Google, he can't look things up I guess? Maybe he has a stack of SovCit comic books in his room that he cribs from?
Lacking a rebuttal from the source, I'll go with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There are only two?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Careful What You Wish For
"gathering for any purpose"
Guess that means no more classes .. Hey - it's beer thirty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: physical aspects are not same as limiting speech.
Please read my comment below
No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...
First, “gov’t-conferred” immunity is just saying that the government interfere with something. It’s the equivalent of a company whose (binding) EULA explicitly state that they cannot and will not sue Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their copyrighted works. That doesn’t make those people the company is explicitly saying it can’t sue part of that company; nor does it mean that those people couldn’t sue other Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their works.
Also, there is no “gov’t-conferred” power involved in §230. They are immune from suit for 3rd-party content (outside certain exceptions) and for moderating decisions of 3rd-party content. The power to moderate was one the companies already had without §230 or any law or government intervention. §230 just means that they can’t be sued for exercising the power they already had.
Having “gov’t-conferred” immunity does not make one a government entity for FA purposes. After all, everyone has “‘gov’t-conferred’ immunity” thanks to the First Amendment. In fact, every right can be seen as an immunity conferred by the government. The question of whether one is a government entity is based on a combination of whether public/government funding is used and what functions the entity performs. Being given immunity from suit has nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Or are you a coward?
I’ll bet you keeping you promise to leave forever to buying you the anime body pillow of your choice that she loses bro.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It just means, that as usual, reality is something that he finds hard to deal with and has to invent things to cope with life, and that for some reason his mental illness demands he spends all his time here venting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?"
It's fun to see you fail with even the most basic ideas.
College campus = a physical location often funded at least partially with government money, where people who pay to access are usually bound to attend for several years, and is difficult/expensive to transfer
Facebook = a virtual space where nobody pays directly, nobody is bound to stay for any length of time and can leave without penalty at any time without penalty
If you fail to understand fundamental aspects of the discussions, you are bound to fail with all your argument.
"I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday"
But, sadly, you did not understand them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh, and of course, Facebook is not government funded, which is one of the fundamental facts that our basket case here chooses to ignore when demanding that they have their free freedom of association removed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.
"Just remember 3 years ago when you weren't called a "nazi" for advocating for free speech."
That's not why you're being called a Nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Collage? free speech?? BACK to the 60's.."
"A collage that doesnt ALLOW the ability to have FREE speech??"
I take it you didn't go to college, then? Or, are you actually whining about the free speech attitude of a method of art?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Is something right just because it isn't against the law?
Is it okay to question laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook
"...the same rules apply there as in the public square."
Meaning you need to apply for a permit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You can't make off-colour jokes any more, either. One chap nearly went to jail for mouthing off about an airport.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Careful What You Wish For
But only alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you mean joking about attacking an airport, that seems more reasonable, even though in that particular case (if I remember what you're talking about) it shouldn't have gone that far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspect she's referring to this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
If so, it's worth noting that the man was first convicted, then successfully appealed and had the conviction quashed, with enough agreement that it was a miscarriage of justice that future cases are likely to need more evidence to get to the same stage.
It's also worth noting that while jail was mentioned as a possible consequence by the press at the time, the actual penalty applied by the court was only a fine, although the man also lost his job as a consequence of the conviction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That depends. What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Only the first amendment matters?
I can't help but wonder how different the comments would be if it was the second amendment instead of the first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because a State College has no rights to Create they can only enforce the basic ones.. that the state created or the Feds..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Careful What You Wish For
Or more likely off campus at a brew pub where you may actually get beer and glare at you if you so much as mention mixing it with an energy drink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why was this truth censored?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It wasn't, but the community who prefer conversations to be a little more mature and civilised asked for it to be hidden. If it was censored, you wouldn't have been able to read it and decide you thought it was true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, don't worry. I get that it was "hidden". I just use blue's own insistence against him, that he calls "hidden" comments "censored" and, based on his criteria, "the only comments worth reading".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks for the interesting post. This article is very important, and I want to publish it at https://partridgehillmedia.com/. Since this resource is engaged in the dissemination of news.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a waste of time
It will be a very long lawsuit, the student and college representatives will lose a lot of free time to figure it out, I think it is better for the student not to waste time in vain, but to continue to study, you can find top essay writing review here that will be useful to you, this saves you a little time and improves your grades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hello! I decided to add several words under this post about one cool place that helps people from all over the world to solve these writing tasks. This page contains information about how to https://writessay.org/write-my-case-brief/ and many other options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]