Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see the FBI's entrapment as nothing but a government sanctioned criminal action when it comes to only viewing child porn. I hate the thought of corrupting our law enforcement personnel as much as I hate child porn itself. No matter how good the intentions were, it's a bad law.
Actually, it's worse. People abusing their power and acting above the law are the lowest form of humanity.
If somehow you're added to an FBI investigation. Then they send you imagery you are being investigated for. Then they can enter your home seize those images and prosecute for Child Pornography violations?
Am I missing something? Because if not, then what stops the FBI suppressing people they think need suppressing?
There is nothing to stop the FBI from framing somebody.
Same way that govt. agents sell drugs and so forth to infiltrate gangs.
It seems that our usual anti-gov posters only need to hear "gov" and decide its wrong.
Kids images, already out there all over the internet with pervs.
If they use images that are already out ther to but up rings and catch hundreds of pedos that's a bad thing?
If so, explain LOGICALLY what the net benefit\loss is to society?
It's an ethical and legal question.
A rare as this is, occasionally someone will wonder why child porn is that bad. They'd argue that a person looking at kids online is less of a threat than a sexual predator, which isn't technically untrue (not always, anyway). The counter argument, however, and generally the courts reasoning as to why it's illegal, is that these images in circulation cause constant re-victimization. Essentially, if we accept the court's reason as to why child porn is wrong, then the FBI is guilty of the same crime.
What is the net loss? Well, it's the same as if some other pedophile (or not pedophile; you don't necessarily need to be one to spread something around; plenty of drug dealers probably don't use drugs themselves) was putting those images out there. If it's wrong for some guy in his basement, then presumably it would be wrong for the FBI to do the same. One could argue intent, and say that the FBI wants to stop others from doing it, but really, how often is intent relevant? If we go back to the most common (though still uncommon) argument against the current child porn laws, the actual level of threat is entirely irrelevant. A guy who has no intention of actually making physical contact with a child and just uses some images taken on an iPhone at the local public pool or whatever is, at least comparatively, harmless. But he'd still be punished. Why is the FBI allowed to do it then?
But there is a real distinction between murder and killing for one's country, so to me, that's nothing but a red herring of yours.
..........................
I fully agree that immunity is lame- it's much more than just lame,
So, one government employees immunity is lame and the other is ok.
Sorry, I just cannot square your rationalization that it's ok to oh....nuke 300k people for one guy but to then turn around and cry about an FBI agent infiltrating a porn ring by using porn pics.
Think hard about that one. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to win.
Thankyou for your service. My post is not a red herring, it's a clear example of gov. immunity.
A rare as this is, occasionally someone will wonder why child porn is that bad. They'd argue that a person looking at kids online is less of a threat than a sexual predator, which isn't technically untrue (not always, anyway). The counter argument, however, and generally the courts reasoning as to why it's illegal, is that these images in circulation cause constant re-victimization. Essentially, if we accept the court's reason as to why child porn is wrong, then the FBI is guilty of the same crime.
What is the net loss? Well, it's the same as if some other pedophile (or not pedophile; you don't necessarily need to be one to spread something around; plenty of drug dealers probably don't use drugs themselves) was putting those images out there. If it's wrong for some guy in his basement, then presumably it would be wrong for the FBI to do the same. One could argue intent, and say that the FBI wants to stop others from doing it, but really, how often is intent relevant? If we go back to the most common (though still uncommon) argument against the current child porn laws, the actual level of threat is entirely irrelevant. A guy who has no intention of actually making physical contact with a child and just uses some images taken on an iPhone at the local public pool or whatever is, at least comparatively, harmless. But he'd still be punished. Why is the FBI allowed to do it then?
The FBI will have guys sell drugs to infiltrate gangs, will use informants, will cut plea deals in exchange for getting the bigger fish.
What about giving people immunity and witness protection?
Oh, I have a doosey for you guys....what about an ambulance driver speeding to a wreck scene. Should we give them tickets or should they have immunity?
What about a coast guard helicopter flying below the minimum height to rescue a boater? Should we put them in prison and take their pilots license for violating FAA guidelines?
The government gives it's agents immunity from all kinds of laws in order to fullfill their function.
I believe the Fedgov has "encouraged" all major producers of encryption-technology to give them a backdoor.
How come Hillary didn't send messages through TOR?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.