Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Spain moves to close down websites that tell girls it's good to be anorexic
timesonline.co.uk — Health authorities in Madrid have acted to close a pro-anorexia website, accusing it of endangering the lives of teenage girls. They said that girls with anorexia or bulimia could die if they followed the website's advice and a judge has been asked to determine whether the owners are criminally liable for the content.
tomboy501- 570 diggs
- digg it
- Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -67/+27They need to promote these sites in the US. There are WAY to many fatty boom batties here.
- Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -56/+16For all the people who are going to digg me down.
United States Has Highest Prevalence of Overweight Teens in 15 Country Study
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-24421.html
Childhood Obesity facts and figures.
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/606/FINALfactsandfigures2.pdf - digggfan, on 10/12/2007, -60/+1http://www.myspace.com/diggnews
- anicejew, on 10/12/2007, -19/+50And yet, they don't shut down companies that tell girls its good to be fat (E.g. mcdonalds.)
- PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Are you stupid or something?
Anorexia is a horrible thing, there are safe ways to lose weight (excercise, eat healthy), this is not one of those. - alantocheri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13There's a HUGE difference between having an overweight population that be healthier if they were to loose a few pounds the RIGHT ways... and telling girls they should be thin, even if it means killing themselves in the process.
Edit: Ditto with PueSi - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -22/+26NO FAT CHICKS
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7@alantocheri
I understand your point but reducing one's caloric intake to ~850 for a few weeks is hardly going to kill you.
Anorexia is deadly but so is heart disease, diabetes, and other problems facing overweight people.
Deliberately eating fewer calories rarely kills people. Heart attacks kill people all the time. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19It's nice to have a first amendment . . . too bad EVERYONE doesn't have a first amendment.
- GruntboyX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@ diggfan
ha ha digg is going to become a new spamming ground. I cant wait till more people catch on. simply ignoring spammers is not good enough. There needs to be a system in place to fix this sort of abuse. because there has been spamm creeping in on all the front page posts. I hope Kevin is listening! - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@GruntboyX
You can block people, if everybody did that no one would ever see them again. When I blocked diggfan, a popup asked "Do you really want to block/report this user?" But it didn't give an option to report after I clicked "OK". - realchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@BassCadet "Heart attacks kill people all the time."
not all the time, unless my grandpa is a zombie. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6By blocking them, you are reporting them. Basically, the admins go through and look at the people that have been blocked the most often and from that can determine who the spammers are, where they're coming from, etc. Then they can improve the filters to eliminate those people.
Block is your friend. Block these spammers = help digg eliminate them. - dainbramage559, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't really think a site advocating anorexia will really do all that much to promote it anyhow, as I have been anorexic before. You dont just suddenly become anorexic, you slide into it.
Say you begin to diet, and you begin to lose weight. You are happy with what's happened, so you step it up a notch so that you can lose more. You feel great, and you're losing weight, and you continue to cut calories, fat, and carbs. Before you know it, you're skinny as a rail. You feel great about the weight you've lost, but you are also eating barely a full meal in one day.
Its all perspective when it comes to anorexia. - renegadeafk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1diggfan is a fag
- docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1* its
... - texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I say leave the info up on the web. Let the stupid ones off themselves. The gene pool will be better off.
- Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -56/+16For all the people who are going to digg me down.
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42The owners shouldn't be criminally liable. If people are retarded enough to do whatever some website tells them then that's their problem, they're not being forced to do anything. Why should a website owner be prosecuted for expressing an opinion?
- Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Full Agree with ya man. The problem with their society that harbours children who starve themselves isn't the evil webmasters, but the culture and advertising in general that idolizes skinny models. Parents need to sit down and talk to their daughters about who they are, and not go after dumb websites.
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's always weird to me when I see things happen in other countries that could never fly here in the U.S. because of the first amendment. Anyway, what if the website said drinking Draino made you healthy and some girls actually died because of it? Would the site be criminally liable? If so, isn't it the government's responsibility to shut it down before that happened? Just something to think about, I don't pretend to have the answer.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3because marketing targeted to children should be held to stricter standards, DER
- metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is a difference in expressing an opinion about something (let that be and way of life) to adult person and to under aged person. How would you feel (for example) I've had a website that tells to teenage girls to have lots of sex and advise them to have babies. Not only that but I also promote heavy usage of alcohol and drugs also - calming that that's good for them. And you underage daughter subscribes to it?
- metamorfoza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3just small update to my post ...
Don't get me worng, I totally yundestand your point - but kids are kids and they will belive anything regardless of the source and i don;t think that makes them retarted. - pinkgreenblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, they're not being forced to be anorexic, but society already has a strong hold on these girls by promoting extreme thinness as beauty. It's hard to avoid television, magazines, movies, the internet, and more, but even if you do, society and everyone else are a part of those things. Whether you like it or not, people judge you and no matter how much you stay away from the media's pull, it is still ingrained in everyone else. Short story shorter: do everything the right way and everybody will still judge you. While I am a fan of free speech, I wouldn't find myself supporting the webmasters of these pro-anorexia websites. Quite frankly, modern society easily makes a lot of people insecure about themselves and their bodies, and to say that everyone is mentally able to be above that kind of insecurity is just silly. I think shutting down those websites will be beneficial for Spanish society, although I welcome your opinion because I'm not claiming to know everything.
- SquisherX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2More people die from being too fat than people who die from being too thin. Although I wouldnt agree with the site, I will defend its right to do it. The difference between really thin girls and really fat girls, is that really fat girls dont need any advice to get any fatter, the answer is simply "stuff your fat face more".
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0They need to start shutting down BBW sites ASAP.
- JurneyAhed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"but kids are kids and they will belive anything"
and that's where parents come in - missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Azimuth, I agree with you.
US laws aside, if you decide to follow medical advice you found on the internet, you're stupid. Plain and simple. Think you found something interesting you'd like to try? Talk to your doctor first.
If you're underage and you decide to follow that medical advice, you're still stupid, but so are the people who are supposed to be watching out for you.
While I completely disagree with anorexia, the idea that someone could be punished for disseminating information is completely ridiculous. - BigCalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg up! Makes about much sense as suing Glock because their guns have become the 'gangstas' gun of choice.
- fliz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Promoting anorexia to deal with obesity is like promoting murder to deal with overpopulation.
(This was supposed to be a reply @ Alphateam)- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well if people die from anorexia, then you would be killing 2 birds with one stone. No pun intended.
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Promoting anorexia to deal with obesity is like promoting murder to deal with overpopulation."
In other words: A really good idea! - Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2There are too many Catholics in the world.
- UglieJosh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Anorexia? More like anoSEXYA!
Sorry, Cyanide reference for anyone who gets it......... - gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I wish the US would shut down Paris HIlton and Nicole Ritchie
- JCSaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Totally...
- dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1as for nicole, i'm pretty sure god's about to do that himself :P
but in all serious - pro-anorexia websites really do feed bad information, but i'm not sure we should shut them down (being a first amendment junkie and all.) we just need more anti-anorexia websites to spread the word.
and for all you assholes who call anorexic people stupid, i really hope you die in a fire. it's a disease, just like depression, that can and has destroyed the lives of many brilliant, intelligent, introspective people (men included.)
- therippa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Cyanide and Happiness - http://image.fpsbanana.com/sprays/icons/anorsexiabig.gif
- ReaperUnreal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2About time. Everyone in Hollywood knows that Anorexia is soooo last season. Being Bulimic is what's in nowadays.
- akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wait, i thought boobs and asses were making a comeback? i mean, scarlett johannsen certainly isnt anorexic, and she seems to be the it girl lately.
but im a girl, so maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. - CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Boobs and asses making a comeback? Comeback from what? They were never out! Big boobs and asses were never the problem, it was the stuff inbetween that shouldn't be big.
- charlie55, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2we men always liked boobs and asses. it is women, and gays, they like the skinny ladies. thats why the skinniest girls are in the fashion industry, where women run things. runway models are much skinnier than the chicks men dig. if men ran fashion shows, runway models would be bangin', with sweet titties and asses.
- akzidenzgrotesk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wait, i thought boobs and asses were making a comeback? i mean, scarlett johannsen certainly isnt anorexic, and she seems to be the it girl lately.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Definitely take the sites down. Spanish girls could use a little meat on them; they're already skinny enough as it is. Must have something to do with the rampant chain-smoking.
- 0siris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The account princesasdeporcelana has been suspended!
Use your browser's back button if you wish to try again.
Guess the host didnt like the attention either. - BarriedaleNick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Good for the Spanish. I dont normally support removal of websites but the proanna sites make me sick (no poun intended). I've seen the damage anorexia does and it mostly effects young girls who dont know better - Ive got no problem with this.
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3It looks like Europe is doing just fine without a Bill of Rights. Yay Civil Liberties!
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You are aware that Europe is a continent and that what happens in one country, in this case Spain, has nothing to do with any of the other countries in the continent?
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1You are aware this happens in MANY OTHER countries on that godless continent, on a regular basis?
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Azimuth1 -- Yeah, except that NO country in Europe has an analogous Bill of Rights as broad and sacrosanct as the United States. As a result, freedom of expression gets trampled all the time -- the oppression just comes mostly from the left.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So, how exactly is Spain's law for censorship about "unhealthy advice" worded?
I didn't even know there was a country that had these, but apparently Spain does.
I'm not against people trying to help against anorexia, however this could be a slippery slope, where e.g. companies producing controversial, but scientifically OK products, to be shut down. What about energy drink companies if they'd be put responsible for some controversial deaths after people having drunk from those? Now that they've done this, they need to be very clear about exactly what kind of censorship they're willing to apply and for which reasons. - Enigmatarius, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Go Spain. Usually I don't approve of net censorship, but this is an exceptional case.
- PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't think they should remove it, I'm totally against any form of censorship on the Internet.
Parents should educate their children so they don't get influenced so easily, we can't make the government babysit our kids.
The society is filled with bad role models, you can't censor them all.- slickrick2k1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What you are proposing can easily be achieved. Why didn't anyone else think of this? Make children less impressionable. Huh. You are a god amongst men.
/sarcasm
- slickrick2k1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What you are proposing can easily be achieved. Why didn't anyone else think of this? Make children less impressionable. Huh. You are a god amongst men.
- DavidtheDuke, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Please die Ana..
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good tune.
- inquebiss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Maybe they should shut down cigarette company websites as well
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Websites that promote self-harm only service to cleanse the gene pool. I say the government should sponsor more of them.
- munix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The conversation here is totally disturbing. Spain has a serious problem with this and they are trying to curb the social expectations and raise awareness. It is not legal for non dr's to give out advice because it could cause damage to people. These sites are promoting a unhealthy lifestyle as a legitimate one one that causes serious emotional and physical issues for these women and men. I agree pro fat sites should also be taken down, or held responsible for the consequences. You should not be able to give advice in a manor that people will take seriously if you are not qualified to discuss it. I can not talk about what someone should do for there legal defense, they should not be able to give diatary advice.
- AKPirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And pretty soon its decided that the vast majority of people are unqualified to give advice on government.
The rest is history. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AK-
I know what you're getting at, and I agree.
However, strangely, most people AREN'T qualified to make decisions around government. It takes a lot of knowledge and a fairly smart person. This is one of the big problems with democracy.
Not that I have any other suggestions, just, you're choice of words inspired me. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah. they should shut down sites that talk about smoking and drinking too. Unhealthy.
And perhaps eating foods with trans fats in them.
- AKPirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And pretty soon its decided that the vast majority of people are unqualified to give advice on government.
- Atlas1977, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What is funny is that one of the themes from many classic stories such as the IIliad is that we should do everything in moderation. Eating, drinking and exercising, everything these days is done in an extreme fashion.
- CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We wouldn't have the X-Games if it weren't the case. Along with the many hiliarious videos of kids smashing their faces doing stunts that everyone says are crazy.
- itisme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm no supporter of these websites, but regarding the argument that young people are reading these sites, information available via the internet is largely uncontrolled and represents a very wide array of cultures, beliefs and ideals. I'm continually surprised that in general parents etc. allow young people unrestricted access to information with little or no thought or guidance, then when they see information/discussion they're unhappy with they ask someone to remove it/make it go away.
The most surprising aspect is possibly that on youtube and TV/News young people are watching the state sponsored killing of saddam, complete with mobile phone happy slapping degrading behaviour and yet its this website that really worries people.
When leaders parade the head of another dead terrorist like some ghoulish victory, appealing to the most base emotions it scares me, better than shutting the site down I would be the vulnerable/impressionable (of any age) being looked after properly! - Egocen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a big polemic here, in Spain, because the government could close any webpage without judicial order. There's a trick in the law that would allow it. It's shameful for me, and tipical from Cuba or something like that, but that is not freedom.
More information (in spanish):
http://www.kriptopolis.org/montilla-anuncia-el-renacimiento-de-la-autoridad-competente-en-internet
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Administraciones/podran/cerrar/webs/estiman/contenido/fraudulento/elpeputec/20061219elpepisoc_2/Tes
With Google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kriptopolis.org%2Fmontilla-anuncia-el-renacimiento-de-la-autoridad-competente-en-internet&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF8
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elpais.com%2Farticulo%2Fsociedad%2FAdministraciones%2Fpodran%2Fcerrar%2Fwebs%2Festiman%2Fcontenido%2Ffraudulento%2Felpeputec%2F20061219elpepisoc_2%2FTes&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=es&ie=UTF8 - lillepalle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Shutting down(NOTE: Shutting DOWN the site, NOT censoring access to it) sites like this is a good move, of course trying to make people commit suicice per not eating enough is not protected by free speech + the people behind should be held accountable for whatever damages they have caused in fragile minds.
They are free to express their views, but making manuals with how to starve yourself wholly or half to death has not got anything to do with free speach, it is simply endangering people in an already weak position, this has absolutely no benefit whatsoever to anyone.- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree, this isn't like other sites the have illegal information and say it is just for information purposes, this site is actually helping someone destroy their health.
- rebuilder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Freedom defined is freedom denied.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, it sets a horribly bad precedent. See my full reply below.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad they are planning on banning these websites, I was just about to start a website that helps and supports people who contract or want to contract respiratory diseases. It is disgraceful that someone set up a website to help make a disease worse, I wonder how many points you would get if you are dead?
- shinkaide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason people get sick (and possibly die) when they don't eat right is that the body is deprived of nutrients it needs to function properly. Anorexia is STUPID. It's a stupid way to deal with any insecurities or issues anyone has.
Destroying your health will not make anyone feel or look better, and it especially won't solve any problems. Talk to people and ask for help.
I say good riddance to web sites that promote practices that have negative effects on people's health.- cosmicr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so you're saying good riddance to digg?
- thanksgiving, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1yea, let spain become the next america, with 75% of the population overweight or obese.
hooray for enormously large fat chicks!
not.- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hooray for arseholes!
not.
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hooray for arseholes!
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2End the nanny state.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is terrible that there are sites like this. It disgusts me, but its even more worrying that this might and probably will set yet another precedent against freedom of speech... censorship of the government, which happens slowly over a period of time, until we simply accept it.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is a horrible decision!
Yes, these websites are awful and the people running them are *morally* responsible for the suffering and death they cause but shutting them down creates a very troubling precedent.
These websites promote anorexia, in other words they (effectively) promote the view that the health risks and psychological complications from this lifestyle are worth the benefits of being excessively thin. Now I strongly disagree with this point of view but once we start censoring (and yes shutting down a site for it's opinion is the essence of censorship) opinions because they urge people to make (legal) decisions about their own lives we disapprove of we no longer have any protection for any unpopular lifestyle.
If it is acceptable to shut down a website because it talks about the joys of anorexia why can't we shut down websites because they talk about the joys of smoking? Presumably websites that talk about the proper use and cultural benefits of hookahs are no more protected than ones that tell you how to binge and purge. Maybe you are okay with this but what about websites on assisted suicide? If the majority of the population decides assisted suicide is a type of self harm that people engage in out of psychological problems is it okay to shut down websites that argue otherwise? What about abortion? Many people think that having an abortion is harmful to the mother so is it reasonable for a free society to ban pro-abortion websites. Or what about websites telling you how to use medical marijuana to treat glaucoma. Once you say it is okay to ban speech because you don't like the moral trade offs it encourages people to make where do you stop?
The lessons of history teach us that we can't suspend free speech just in those cases where it advocates a 'bad thing.' Someone always has to decide what is a bad thing and that means whoever is in power (the majority in a democracy) gets to suppress views it thinks of as harmful or dangerous. Sure it's awful that some girls die of anorexia but that is a small price to pay compared to the blood that has been spilled to give us in the west the right to free speech. - MistInTheNight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hi there from Spain. I think that the view on social liberties is different here in the UE than in the USA. I'm against censorship, any kind of censorship, but how do you control childs from accessing this kind of misinformation ? In the USA you have a strong control over the main TV channels -almost no nudes, etc- Here we don't care at all about those things, but a popular web promoting suicide for underaged people is a problem.
The solution would be to FORCE that companies to tag their website as adult-oriented and tools delivered to parents to choose what they and they children want to see.- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Saying, 'I am against any kind of censorship but...' is like saying 'I'm against any kind of violence but we need to kill that *****.' My point above shows that there is no essential difference between suppressing these kinds of messages and suppressing any other kind of message you don't like. EVERYONE who demands a website be taken down or some message be censored does so because they think the message is harmful and people will be hurt. Free speech is meaningless if it only protects popular or inoffensive ideas and ideas are offensive because people think they cause harm.
Free speech works in western democracies exactly because the majority doesn't think the fact that an idea is harmful or encourages bad behavior is sufficient justification to censor it. Once you obliterate this line there is no more protection for free speech.
No one is suggesting the USA is some great model of how to deal with the media. However, I would add that I would find it much less problematic if this sort of material was just restricted from TV but still easily accessible by adults.
- logicnazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Saying, 'I am against any kind of censorship but...' is like saying 'I'm against any kind of violence but we need to kill that *****.' My point above shows that there is no essential difference between suppressing these kinds of messages and suppressing any other kind of message you don't like. EVERYONE who demands a website be taken down or some message be censored does so because they think the message is harmful and people will be hurt. Free speech is meaningless if it only protects popular or inoffensive ideas and ideas are offensive because people think they cause harm.
- B0jangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we can't see your pancreas curves, you're not sexy.
- zlyoga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can't believe there are people here who support taking the site down. Yes it is dangerious. Yes people disagree with it's message. But that doesn't make censorship okay.
- scottfarner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, I should preface this comment by stating our laws have absolutely no bearing on Spanish law.
In our country, there is legal precedent for censorship when the health/lives of children are at risk, as they are unable to make informed decisions on issues regarding their health and safety. IMHO it would be a failure of society not to remove a site with unsafe/inaccurate messages regarding heath that are directed at young women. - BattleStar47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Let me ask you, zyloga, do you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater? In the US legal system, no...you don't. Do you people have the right to sell pornography to children? No. That's censorship. Its not an unlimited thing for a good reason: In certain situations NOT censoring things can be harmful. This is probably no different.
- zlyoga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@battle But this is preventing the site from being accessed by adults as well as children. No one forces people to visit the site. People seek it out on their own
- scottfarner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, I should preface this comment by stating our laws have absolutely no bearing on Spanish law.
- ellecon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with logicnazi....and this is from someone who had her grandmother's entire family wiped out bu Nazis. Paradoxically this is why I support logicnazi's right to use the word Nazi in any way he/she chooses.
Giving the state the ability to censor or suppress offensive content seems like a good idea if you ignore the slippery slope argument. Allowing the state to remove sites for "good" reasons sets a precedent which will allow the state to remove sites for corrupt reasons.
Anorexia is a dangerous and potentially life-threatening disease and parents should be on guard in case one of their children should fall victim. Parents should also be aware of drug abuse,unsafe sexual practices,underage drinking,on-line sexual predators,etc,etc,etc... It's why raising children is such brutally hard work.
There is no question that kids need adult guidance, but that is the responsibility and right of the parents/family of the child. The child's family should have an open line of communication regarding eating disorders rather than relying on the state to be a nanny.
- imafreakazoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anorexia is Phat!
Digg me down but I had to do it. - AstralSin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i like me some thick girls, not little scrawny beanpoles... thick girls jiggle just right and skinny ones HURT because of their bones JABBING your crotch. so, ffs, EAT UP GIRLS
- glmory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It has been showed in every model organism it has been studied in that eating just slightly above starvation calories with all nutrients you need is the way to live the longest. It is true that some of these girls actually starve themselves to death, however the slightly less hard core ones may out live all of us.
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like big butts and I cannot lie..
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
