Regular reader Shotacon writes in with another article, this time on how 'child protection' hysteria is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's a long read, so buckle up!

Remember, Always Stay Working and Pay Up! Bye!

Ryan Kaji was a very inquisitive 3 year old boy who liked trying out new toys. At least, that's how it started.

How it turned out was quite different. Ryan's parents, Shion and Loann, put him to work as the breadwinner for the family under pressure to "perform" for the camera in order to build up his YouTube channel "Ryan's World" into a $250 million per year enterprise. But did Ryan control or have access to his money? Could Ryan quit without dishonoring his parents? Not really. Ryan's dad Shion explained that they established the production company and hired a team specifically to "streamline the production and minimize the participation requirements for Ryan in order to "protect" Ryan's childhood." Loann stated that they "shield Ryan from the business part as much as possible." Shion even admitted, stating that it was a good thing, that 100% of Ryan's on screen talent fee was put in a trust and an unknown stake of the empire as well. However, to put it into perspective, his parents used Ryan to profit off of his childhood curiosity, broadcast him to the world, and then kept the lion's share of the revenue and hold complete control over the company, shutting Ryan out of business decisions. After 10 years, Ryan is still visibly hesitant in interviews, looking at his dad for a sign to say the correct answer like in a hostage video.

One of the issues was that social media influencers are not protected by the Coogan Law. But even then, that law only mandates that 15% of a minor's earnings are set aside in a trust, and only in certain states. Why were Ryan's rights and free agency not afforded to him? Why couldn't Ryan grow his channel at his own pace even if it meant being less successful, or even decide not to be in the public eye entirely? Why was Ryan not provided the right to decide what HE wanted to do with HIS money? Why doesn't Ryan own the majority stake in an empire built off of his likeness? And finally, where are all of these fanatics who always scream about how children MUST be protected at all times?

The issue is that the so called "child protection" hysteria that so many anti-MAPs and anti-minors spout constantly is all just a lie to cover up the real truth. It's a massive money-maker. They use the lie and the children in order to build massive wealth for themselves. Below are several examples on how those so vocal about "child protection" are more focused on a money-grab on the backs of children (and MAPs), while MAPs simply want to love them unconditionally for who they are.

Meta Bad—Social Media Exploitation of Teens

Addie LaMarr, on her YouTube channel, exposes a very dark secret that the big tech companies don't want anyone to know, just one example of how they LOVE exploiting kids for money.

In 2016, minors were leaving Facebook and Instagram and moving to Snapchat in huge numbers. Meta needed to quickly know why and how the shift was happening. Snapchat, during this massive migration, encrypted its traffic and Meta was now blind. So Zuckerberg sent his team a clear directive with teens as the top priority "we need reliable analytics about Snapchat". "You need to figure out how to do this". Meta engineers launched something called Project Ghostbusters. Their plan was to bypass plain HTTPS encryption and restore visibility into Snapchat, YouTube, House Party and other apps. How did they do it?

They created a fake root certificate to impersonate targeted apps, and installed it through a VPN profile. It intercepted encrypted traffic, decrypted that traffic and logged it, and then re-encrypted it before sending it along. From the user's side, everything looked normal. But in reality, Meta had just carried out a "Man-in-the-middle" attack. It was the exact kind of tactic you'd expect from spyware or state surveillance programs. However, this was a social company spying on kids aged 13 to 17. Young people were even offered 20 bucks in gift cards to install the software, and Meta's own VP of security warned, "no security person is ever comfortable with this." Eventually in 2018, Apple banned Onavo, the spyware company owned by Meta, for violating it's privacy rules. So Meta just rebranded it. They called it Facebook Research, code named it "Project Atlas", and used Apple's enterprise distribution system to sneak it onto iPhones, bypassing the app store entirely.

When Josh Constine from TechCrunch broke the story in 2019, Apple responded by revoking Meta's enterprise certificates, which instantly killed every internal app Meta employees were using at the time. But did they actually stop? Of course not. They kept the project alive on Android. They kept collecting data. They kept on making billion dollar decisions, based on surveillance. This was a long term business model, designed with intent, backed by technical expertise and strategically targeted at minors. Meta basically manipulated and sold out kids for massive profits.

Dude, Where's My Cut?—Ashton Kutcher's "Thorn" in the EU's Side

$25 million is the amount paid, over a 5 year period, to Thorn by Big Tech social apps for subscriptions to its product suite of Thorn Detect (its machine-learning tool for platforms) or Safer (the tool co-developed with Tech Against Trafficking). But the cash grab doesn't stop there. Thorn CEO Julie Cordua earns $330,000 annually, a large sum for a small non-profit organization, and eight other employees earn six figure salaries. Reports show that Thorn had acquired $19 million in 2021, and some of the money comes from grants by other foundations.

Thorn, the nonprofit organization founded by Ashton Kutcher, has become a central player in the European Union's efforts to combat online criminalized images of minors (CIM), leveraging its influence to shape policy and generate revenue through its technology products. It's rather curious that Kutcher is concerned with sex related crimes when he previously showed support in court records for former co-star (That '70s Show) and convicted rapist Danny Masterson.

Formally known as Regulation (EU) 2021/1232, The "Temporary CSAM Scanning Derogation" was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on July 14, 2021. It provided cover for Big Tech apps to perform client side scanning on the communication devices of 450 million EU residents without violating the GDPR. It could also be used to mandate platforms like WhatsApp and TikTok to scan user content for CIM on their devices prior to any end-to-end encryption. 

Documents show the European Commission regarded Thorn as a "partner" in drafting the law, with officials expressing gratitude for its "close collaboration." This privileged access allowed Thorn to promote its own software, Safer, as the preferred solution for detecting CIM. You see, Kutcher was playing this sales pitch with two faces. When meeting with EU leaders in trying to draft the laws, Thorn was always a "charity" as a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Organization. But during the contract signing, Kutcher frequently described Thorn as a "nonprofit startup." Additionally, filings list an investment by Thorn worth $930,000 in a company called "A-Grade", a venture capital firm co-owned by Ashton Kutcher, which holds nearly $115 million of assets.

Kutcher also worked closely with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. He knew what he was getting given her history of taking bribes and granting no-bid contracts to her cronies. During "Pfizergate", Von der Leyen personally negotiated a massive deal with American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer for up to 1.8 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses, valued at an estimated €35 billion. It was revealed that she bypassed normal public procurement channels by directly messaging and calling Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to hammer out the deal. When journalists and the EU Ombudsman requested access to the text messages under transparency laws, the European Commission claimed they couldn't find them, later admitting the messages were likely deleted and the phones "formatted." Maybe if Thorn's software "Safer" was programmed to find corruption, then we would have those texts before they were "deleted"? During the Berateraffäre scandal, Von der Leyen bypassed public bidding rules to hand hundreds of millions of Euros to outside consulting firms (like McKinsey and Accenture) to help "modernize" the German military. Compounding the bad optics, her own son worked for McKinsey at the time. Just like Pfizergate, when a German parliamentary committee demanded to see her phone records to investigate the contract approvals, it was discovered that her ministry cell phones had been completely wiped clean.

Thorn generates millions in revenue by selling its Safer software to medium-sized tech companies that lack the resources to build their own detection systems.  The tool uses AI and hash-matching technology (based on Microsoft's PhotoDNA) to identify known CIM images and flag new ones.

Critics argue that Thorn's dual role as a non-profit advocate and commercial software vendor blurs ethical lines. Privacy advocates warn that client-side scanning, which Thorn supports, enables mass surveillance and undermines end-to-end encryption. 

On March 27, 2026, the European Parliament voted to let the temporary CIM scanning regulation expire. 311 members voted against extending it. This is a significant win for encrypted communications in Europe. The fight is not over though. The EU is currently in debate over a related permanent regulation, commonly called "Chat Control." This would go further than the expired temporary regulation. It would mandate scanning rather than allowing voluntary participation. It includes provisions for client-side scanning to cover encrypted services. And it proposes text analysis for "grooming detection," which means reading message content, not just matching image hashes.

Despite backlash over Kutcher's personal controversies, Thorn remains a powerful force in EU policy-making, with its influence extending far beyond its stated mission of "protecting children". Just imagine the amounts Thorn, A-Grade and Kutcher stand to make, should a permanent law pass European Parliament.

If You've Been Touched at All, Get Ready for a Big Windfall!

There are a number of personal injury law firms such as The Zalkin Law Firm, Herman Law, and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg who have greatly profited off of the "big lie of protectionism" and framed themselves as "saints fighting monsters". Many of them love the limelight as well. Gloria Allred for one can't get enough attention. The truth is that there is big money to be made with these cases. Furthermore, it's like shooting fish in a barrel when getting juries to agree to large settlements. After all, it's for the children... or is it?

Because these cases are almost exclusively handled on a contingency fee basis, law firms only profit if they win or settle, but that only means they can take a larger cut in the end. This is how most personal injury cases are constructed. However, when dealing with "child sexual abuse" cases, there is a very low bar to overcome when proving liability, and that is due to the big lie of predator hysteria that plagues every corner of our society.

In "child sexual abuse" (CSA) litigation, private law firms typically charge a contingency fee ranging from 33% to 40% of the total recovery, plus reimbursement for litigation expenses (filing fees, expert witnesses, etc.).

• Gross Profit Example: In a $1,000,000 settlement, the law firm typically receives $333,333 to $400,000.
• Mass Tort/Class Action: In large-scale settlements involving thousands of victims (like the Boy Scouts or religious institutions), the court may cap fees at 25% to ensure more funds reach the plaintiffs, though the sheer volume of claimants still results in massive firm revenue.

The last two years (2025–2026) have seen record-breaking payouts, which translate into record revenue for the law firms involved:

Case-Entity / Total Settlement / Est. Attorney Fees (25%–33%)

• LA County (2025/2026) / $4.8 billion / $1.2B – $1.6B
• Boy Scouts of America / $2.46 billion / $615M – $811M
• Catholic Archdioceses (Various) / ~$1.5 billion (Total) / $375M – $500M
• Michigan State University, USA Gymnastics, USOPC / $1.018 billion / $265M - $335M

If we look at the total payouts across the United States, we can estimate the "gross revenue" for the plaintiff's bar in this niche:

• Total Reported Payouts: Since 2003, over $13 billion has been paid out in publicly reported CSA settlements.
• Annualized Revenue: In a "normal" year (without a multi-billion dollar outlier), the total recovery for plaintiffs across the U.S. ranges between $500 million and $1 billion.
• Estimated Annual Firm Revenue: Based on a 33% average fee, law firms in this space generate approximately $165 million to $330 million in gross revenue annually during standard years. In "surge" years like 2025, this figure can spike to over $2 billion.

For individual firms, this is one of the highest-risk, highest-reward areas of law.

• Upfront Costs: Firms often spend $50,000 to $250,000 per case on expert testimony and discovery before seeing a dime.
• Net Profit: After paying salaries, office overhead, and "case costs" for unsuccessful filings, the net profit margin for a successful boutique firm specializing in CSA can range from 40% to 60%.

These figures only represent the Plaintiff side. Defense firms (hired by insurance companies or institutions) bill by the hour, typically charging $400–$900 per hour. This "defense spend" is often equal to or greater than the plaintiff's fees, meaning the total "legal economy" surrounding these cases is nearly double the estimates above.

Another added element of these firms' ruthlessness in exploiting these discriminatory laws against minors and MAPs is their unethical and illegal behaviors in seeking new cases. One of the most severe scandals in recent history, called "capping," emerged in California. Under California law, "capping"—paying intermediaries or recruiters to aggressively find and drive claimants to a specific law firm—is strictly illegal. Another scam tactic these firms use is through fabricated claims and predatory lead-generation. Security and legal industry audits have revealed that predatory lead-generation firms often rush the vetting process to sign up as many clients as possible.

What's worse, while reputable firms operate on a standard 33% to 40% contingency fee, some plaintiffs in massive institutional bankruptcies have reported being "fee-stacked." After a national firm takes its cut, additional liens, bankruptcy trust administration fees, and fees from co-counsel or local firms are deducted. In extreme mass-tort scenarios, some plaintiffs have walked away with only a small fraction of the gross settlement amount, while the legal teams walked away with tens of millions.

It's important to mention that there are real cases where forced rape and corrosion/manipulation are present and those types of assault are horrific and should remain illegal. However, there are other victims of this money-grab industry, and those are consenting minors and loving MAPs who simply want to be left alone to love one another in peace. The profit seeking firms who exploit the system and prey on these loving couples are the real predators and monsters.

Premium-Price Pathways—"We Put The Customer Solvency Assessment in CSA"

Once "the system" has successfully inflicted it's damage on the minor and MAP in a loving consensual relationship and having separated this loving couple, it's time to go to work on "rehabilitation" of the minor—yet one more profit opportunity. This usually is focused on gaslighting (grooming) the minor into believing they suffered abuse, even when the minor does not believe this to be true.

For-profit centers specializing in treating victims of "child abuse"—often categorized as Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs) or specialized behavioral health centers—operate within a highly profitable niche of the broader $140+ billion mental health market. Sadly, their financial structures are designed for significant returns, particularly when backed by private equity.

For-profit treatment centers generally achieve higher margins than their non-profit counterparts by optimizing patient "mix" and operational efficiency. Standard residential treatment facilities typically operate on 15–25% net profit margins. However, specialized or "luxury" centers that offer high-end trauma-informed care can see margins as high as 35–45%.

These facilities generate revenue on a "per-diem" (per day, per child) basis. Rates vary significantly based on the level of care:

• Government/Medicaid Funded: Centers typically receive $400–$800 per day per child.
• Private Pay/Insurance: Specialized trauma centers can command $1,200–$2,100 per day. Premium residential stays for trauma recovery can cost between $15,000 and $75,000 per month.
• Annual Revenue per Facility: A successful mid-sized residential center (approx. 50–100 beds) can generate between $10 million and $30 million in annual revenue. Large for-profit chains like Sequel Youth & Family Services (prior to restructuring) regularly reported annual revenues exceeding $200 million.

Approximately 40–60% of for-profit behavioral health facilities are now owned or backed by private equity firms. The business model for these investors typically targets:

• A 3x Return on Investment (ROI): Firms often aim to triple their initial investment within a 4–7 year window.
• Consolidation: Profit is maximized by "rolling up" smaller, independent trauma centers into a single corporate entity to reduce administrative overhead and increase bargaining power with insurance companies.
• Revenue Drivers for Victim Treatment: Unlike general psychiatric hospitals, centers for abuse victims rely on specific revenue "multipliers":
• Length of Stay: Profitability increases with the "Average Length of Stay" (ALOS). Centers aim for 45–90 days for intensive trauma work, as the highest costs (intake and assessment) occur in the first week.
• Ancillary Services: Beyond the daily bed rate, centers bill separately for psychiatric evaluations ($220+/hour), individual therapy ($110–$150/hour), and specialized medication management.
• Educational Grants: Many RTFs receive additional "Title I" or special education funding (often $10,000–$20,000 per student) to provide schooling on-site, which adds a secondary revenue stream alongside clinical billing.

The reality is that these minors are nothing more than an ATM for these private equity backed firms to further exploit the system and squeeze every last dime out of this witch hunt. For all of the pleas of "protect the children", when they finally get control of the minor, they go to work extracting and harvesting profit while using the minor as a tool to make money. When funds finally run out due to frequent utilization review denials from insurance providers, the minor is magically "cured" and discharged.

Green Is The New Black

But wait, there's more! They not only make money from minor "rehabilitation", they also need to make money from incarceration of the MAP. We can estimate the scale of this revenue by looking at the total population of sex offenders, the average per-diem rates paid to private facilities, and the specialized contracts for "civil commitment" centers.

In 2021, a landmark study led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that the U.S. government spends approximately $5.4 billion annually to incarcerate adults convicted of sex crimes against children.

• State Prisons: ~$4.4 billion (127,282 inmates)
• Federal Prisons: ~$508 million (12,850 inmates)
• Civil Commitment Facilities: ~$538 million (4,321 individuals)

Roughly 8% to 10% of the total U.S. prison population is held in for-profit facilities operated by companies like CoreCivic and The GEO Group. If we apply this percentage to the total spending:

• Estimated Private Sector Revenue: For-profit companies likely collect $430 million to $540 million annually from housing sex offenders.
• Profit Margins: Private prisons typically operate on a 7% to 15% net profit margin. This suggests they may generate roughly $30 million to $80 million in pure profit per year from this specific demographic.

The most profitable sector for sex offender management is often Civil Commitment, where individuals are held indefinitely for treatment after completing their prison sentences. While a standard prison bed might cost the government $60–$100 per day, civil commitment beds can cost $300–$400 per day due to the requirement for intensive therapy and higher security. The GEO Group and other specialized contractors frequently bid on these "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) programs because the high daily rates and long-term (often lifelong) nature of the commitment provide a stable, high-margin revenue stream. In 2015, Judge Donovan Frank exposed the "SVP" pipeline corruption in Minnesota where there had been over 700 "patients" and not one had ever been released.

There are also revenue "multipliers" for For-profit Facilities. For-profit prisons maximize the profit from these inmates through several secondary channels:

• Specialized Programming: Facilities often bill the state extra for "intensive sex offender treatment programs" which can add $10,000+ per inmate to the annual contract.
• Low Staffing Costs: In for-profit settings, labor accounts for roughly 70% of costs. By maintaining a lower staff-to-inmate ratio than public prisons, they retain a larger portion of the per-diem rate as profit.
• Phone & Commissary: Inmates in private facilities often pay higher rates for phone calls and basic goods, which generates millions in additional "ancillary revenue" for the operators.

Strings Attached—Anatomy of their Racket

1. Manufacture fake hysteria of a "horrible" problem that needs to be fixed by spending resources
2. Garner public support as "why would people NOT want to care for children?"
3. Work with legislators to pass laws to favor your position
4. Build up an infrastructure to support "The Money Machine"
5. Rake it in, on the backs of the innocent (MAPs AND Minors)

It was never about "protecting kids". It was all about the money. If it was about the kids, then the industry experts like Judith Levine, Richard Green, Allen Frances, Michael First, Karen Franklin, and Allyn Walker would be the crafters of the solution. Instead they stood up against the money-grubbers.

As we know, Hebephilia and Ephebophila were rejected as a "mental illness" for the DSM-5. "Classifying it as a mental disorder risked pathologizing a significant percentage of the adult population" (Frances & First)

The main driver against the diagnosis was its potential misuse in the legal system, particularly in Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment hearings. In many jurisdictions, the state cannot civilly commit a sex offender indefinitely past their prison sentence unless they have an officially recognized "mental illness" or "abnormality". Critics proved that prosecutors were already misusing the catch-all category "Paraphilia NOS (Not Otherwise Specified)" to label offenders as "hebephiles" just to keep them jailed. Legitimizing "Pedohebephilia" in the DSM-5 would have created a massive wave of false-positive psychiatric diagnoses used purely for legal preventative detention, blurring the line between clinical medicine and statutory law enforcement.

The rejection was largely driven by the APA Board of Trustees and a wave of outside professional pressure. While the Board's individual votes are confidential, several prominent psychiatrists and psychologists were instrumental in the opposition:

Richard Green, M.D., J.D.: A key figure who had previously advocated for the removal of homosexuality. He famously challenged the proposal with the question, "Hebephilia is a mental disorder? You can't be serious!" He argued that such an attraction, while potentially illegal if acted upon, did not meet the threshold of a mental illness.

Allen Frances, M.D. (DSM-IV Chair): He was a fierce critic of the DSM-5 process, specifically warning that including hebephilia would lead to "diagnostic inflation" and the misuse of psychiatry for civil commitment purposes.

Karen Franklin, Ph.D.: A forensic psychologist who testified and wrote extensively against the diagnosis, calling it a "pretextual" label used primarily to keep sex offenders in prison after their sentences ended.

Closing thoughts

This abuse of minors, MAPs and their loving relationships just for the sake of a big money-grab is disgusting and vile. What makes it worse is their claim to be on the "good side" while "protecting minors". From the looks of things, the only thing they are "protecting" are their bank accounts. Shame!

Sources

Remember, Always Stay Working and Pay Up! Bye!

https://www.fastcompany.com/91202440/inside-ryan-kaji-business-child-youtube-star

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan%27s_World#:~:text=The%20Ryan's%20World%20channel%20has,over%20%24250%20million%20in%202021.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C__sK7z5_s

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2024/12/04/how-coogans-law-and-the-child-content-creator-rights-act-affect-young-creators

Meta Bad—Social Media Exploitation of Teens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1opKW6X88og

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/facebook-snapchat-project-ghostbusters-meta-19373667.php

https://techoversight.org/2026/01/25/top-report-mdl-jan-25/#:~:text=Document%20laying%20out%20multi%2Dyear,%E2%80%9CTeen%E2%80%9D%20(13%2B)

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/

Dude, Where's My Cut?—Ashton Kutcher's "Thorn" in EU's Side

https://archive.is/mtitb

https://cunicula.com/en/articles/eu-csam-scanning-rejected

https://www.courthousenews.com/pfizergate-eu-court-ruling-goes-against-von-der-leyen/#:~:text=The%20scandal%20goes%20back%20to,Pfizer%2C%20a%20U.S.%20pharmaceutical%20giant

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-new-controversy-erupts-around-ursula-von-der-leyen-s-text-messages-a-6510951f-e8dc-4468-a0af-2ecd60e77ed9

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66772846

If You've Been Touched at All, Get Ready for a Big Windfall!

https://www.sokolovelaw.com/personal-injury/sexual-abuse/settlements-and-verdicts/#:~:text=Since%202003%2C%20individuals%20and%20institutions,detention%20and%20foster%20care%20facilities

https://www.legalnewsline.com/south-california-record/la-county-probes-lawyers-for-misconduct-in-abuse-settlement/article_f614ede0-9a9a-42bc-932c-b4dae3d81380.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIllegal%20'capping'%20and%20',legislation%20authored%20by%20state%20Sen

https://masstortadagency.com/mass-tort-sexual-abuse-cases/#:~:text=Verification%20relies%20on%20narratives%2C%20timelines,locations%2C%20and%20details%20matter%20immensely.

https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-county-sexual-abuse-settlement-1001fe3104da59e0fc043ef1d55b1306#:~:text=George%20Tyndall%2C%20who%20worked%20at,by%20sports%20doctor%20Larry%20Nassar.

Premium-Price Pathways—"We Put The Customer Solvency Assessment in CSA"

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/childrens-rights/five-facts-about-troubled-teen-industry/#:~:text=One%20such%20for%2Dprofit%20facility,each%20child%20at%20a%20facility.%E2%80%9D

https://www.amitypb.com/blog/how-much-do-rehab-centers-earn/

https://lawstreetmedia.com/insights/a-close-look-at-residential-mental-health-treatment-litigation/

Green Is The New Black

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10790632221078305

https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2024/02/Private-Prisons-in-the-United-States.pdf

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/exploitation.html

https://blog.amjudges.org/2015/06/19/federal-district-judge-declares-unconstitutional-minnesota-sex-offender-civil-commitment-program/#:~:text=U.S.%20District%20Judge%20Donovan%20Frank,they%20completed%20their%20prison%20sentences

Strings Attached—Anatomy of their Racket

https://jaapl.org/content/39/1/78

https://jaapl.org/content/42/2/191

https://jaapl.org/content/39/4/496

Image Credits

"Ryan's World Toys Walmart" by JeepersMedia is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/?ref=openverse.

"Mark Zuckerberg interviewed by Financial Times, Scobleizer, and Techcrunch" by Robert Scoble is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/?

"Ashton Kutcher - 2023 - P060603-362041 (cropped 2)" by Photographer: Jennifer Jacquemart is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/?ref=openverse.

"2012 Gloria Allred" by Gloria Allred is the owner and holds the sole exclusive copyright of the work. is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/?ref=openverse.