I sort of revoke my previous statement. It's yet to backfire, so it might work.
Maybe.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828657]but i mean why should the fbi be exempt from the law?[/QUOTE]They're not? I don't claim to be an expert on US law, but sting operations are a very common and powerful law enforcement tool. Like having an undercover operative purchase drugs to get proof against the dealer.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828610]if the damage was already done why nab the customers in the first place?
why is it alright for the fbi to allow for the distribution of child pornography? why is it alright for the fbi to blatantly break the law to hunt people down?[/QUOTE]
"If someone was raped, why nab the rapist? I mean, he already raped the person, the damage is already done."
They're doing this to catch people do they don't go out and fuck little kids and take pictures of it. The police and shit do this stuff ALL the time, they go and buy drugs to set up meetings and bust the drug dealers. Buying drugs is breaking the law, but they need to do it to catch these people.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40828646]They're not putting more children in harm's way by using the pictures[/QUOTE]
By this logic sharing those pictures shouldn't be illegal which is wrong.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40828694]They're not? I don't claim to be an expert on US law, but sting operations are a very common and powerful law enforcement tool. Like having an undercover operative purchase drugs to get proof against the dealer.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40828695]"If someone was raped, why nab the rapist? I mean, he already raped the person, the damage is already done."
They're doing this to catch people do they don't go out and fuck little kids and take pictures of it. The police and shit do this stuff ALL the time, they go and buy drugs to set up meetings and bust the drug dealers. Buying drugs is breaking the law, but they need to do it to catch these people.[/QUOTE]
so it's alright to break the law as long as you are doing it with the intent of putting someone in shackles?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40828646][B]They're not putting more children in harm's way by using the pictures[/B], they're reducing the market for cp. If you've got a better idea for catching them, let the FBI know.[/QUOTE]
If there were money involved that gave the producers incentive to produce more, then, although the methods used are dubious, I think it's good that it was dealt with. But if they're catching consumers who merely saved images from the forum then they're catching individuals for harmless acts (read: bold part) that they are committing themselves.
[B]EDIT:[/B]
I think illegal things should be harmful.
Child pornography and drugs are two examples of this and I think it is ridiculous. Neither of those should be prohibited; the fact that people can't own them but the FBI can is hypocritical. If it was really that bad to possess CP and to possess and buy drugs, the police wouldn't be allowed to do it either. The police isn't allowed to reproduce other crimes like rape and murder so why are they allowed to reproduce these two?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828657]but i mean why should the fbi be exempt from the law?[/QUOTE]
In this case, why not? In some sting operations the authorities use real drugs to catch drug dealers, in this case they're using childporn, and they're not making CP themselves, they're using preexisting CP(where the damage has already been done) to lure people into sharing their own CP, therefore getting them arrested and reducing the demand for CP
does arresting people for cp actually lower the demand for cp though? does busting drug users actually lower the demand for drugs?
[QUOTE=NMDanny;40828717]In this case, why not? In some sting operations the authorities use real drugs to catch drug dealers, in this case they're using childporn, and they're not making CP themselves, they're using preexisting CP[B](where the damage has already been done)[/B] to lure people into sharing their own CP, therefore getting them arrested and reducing the demand for CP[/QUOTE]
This implies that sharing is okay because the damage has already been done. Sharing actually causes more damage.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828610]if the damage was already done why nab the customers in the first place?
why is it alright for the fbi to allow for the distribution of child pornography? why is it alright for the fbi to blatantly break the law to hunt people down?[/QUOTE]
What they did was left the site up to see who is using the site and get them, it's not the FBI hosting the site and putting the images up themselves, it's a standard sting operation that actually worked. Just shutting down the site and letting the customers run off to other sites for their needs won't do anything, all they're doing is shutting down a site and ending it at that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828705]so it's alright to break the law as long as you are doing it with the intent of putting someone in shackles?[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply to them. It's like saying everyone in the military and police in California should be arrested because they're using assault rifles, and thats against the law. :downs:
Even if it is illegal, I still approve of it because I'd rather have these people arrested than them taking these pictures of people raping and abusing little children.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;40828591]So basically you're saying that because the damage is already done and the images are already made, it's okay to use it?
Double standards, much?[/QUOTE]
Depending on the situation and, in this case, accompanied by cold hard facts, maintaining this site did more good than would've simply closing it. The world is a different shade of gray every day. It's crossing into morally questionable territory, but you can't argue with the results.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828705]so it's alright to break the law as long as you are doing it with the intent of putting someone in shackles?[/QUOTE]If doing these sorts of sting operations were illegal in the US, then there's plenty of lawyers who'd love to get a chunk of money from suing the police for it, or already would have. I'm looking through various sites hoping to get a concrete answer, but for the moment i'm assuming it's not illegal, on the balance of probability. If I get some proper information, i'll let you know.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828657]but i mean why should the fbi be exempt from the law?[/QUOTE]
They're allowed to do some illegal things undercover:
[IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zlq4dEmS1r3ynm3.png[/IMG]
(from: [URL]http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped[/URL], the page BDA linked to)
So, they couldn't make their own child porn (since that would fall under harming others), but they can keep the site running, even if that causes them to indirectly spread child pornography.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40828812]If doing these sorts of sting operations were illegal in the US, then there's plenty of lawyers who'd love to get a chunk of money from suing the police for it, or already would have. I'm looking through various sites hoping to get a concrete answer, but for the moment i'm assuming it's not illegal, on the balance of probability. If I get some proper information, i'll let you know.[/QUOTE]
no it's illegal to distribute child pornography. why should they be exempted from this law?
Anyone remember that kid with asbergers the police used?
[QUOTE=leontodd;40828239]Does this border on entrapment? I'm not familiar with US laws though so I'm probably wrong.[/QUOTE]
It's only entrapment if they convince you to commit a crime you wouldn't ordinarily do
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828828]no it's illegal to distribute child pornography. why should they be exempted from this law?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40828826]They're allowed to do some illegal things undercover:
[IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zlq4dEmS1r3ynm3.png[/IMG]
(from: [URL]http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped[/URL], the page BDA linked to)
So, they couldn't make their own child porn (since that would fall under harming others), but they can keep the site running, even if that causes them to indirectly spread child pornography.[/QUOTE]I figure that explains the point I was trying to make.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40828897]I figure that explains the point I was trying to make.[/QUOTE]
i know.
why should they get that exemption from the law
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40828826]They're allowed to do some illegal things undercover:
[IMG]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1zlq4dEmS1r3ynm3.png[/IMG]
(from: [URL]http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped[/URL], the page BDA linked to)
So, they couldn't make their own child porn (since that would fall under harming others), but they can keep the site running, even if that causes them to indirectly spread child pornography.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain why they are allowed to commit one crime but not another? Why are they allowed to commit drug and child porn crimes when they are not allowed to harm others? Why couldn't an undercover cop commit murder if it would help catch other murderers?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;40829002]Can you explain why they are allowed to commit one crime but not another? Why are they allowed to commit drug and child porn crimes when they are not allowed to harm others? Why couldn't an undercover cop commit murder if it would help catch other murderers?[/QUOTE]
how would being a murderer get you in touch with other ones? is there like a murderer convention where you have to murder someone to gain entry? by possessing drugs, if they were to "deal" it, they'd catch someone. same goes for CP.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40829020]how would being a murderer get you in touch with other ones? is there like a murderer convention where you have to murder someone to gain entry? by possessing drugs, if they were to "deal" it, they'd catch someone. same goes for CP.[/QUOTE]
hypothetically, if it would help catch murderers, would it be alright for law enforcement to murder people?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;40829002]Can you explain why they are allowed to commit one crime but not another? Why are they allowed to commit drug and child porn crimes when they are not allowed to harm others?[/QUOTE]
Because buying drugs and catching pedophiles is completely different from murdering someone? They do these things so they can actually catch them in the act and have proof that they where doing it otherwise, everything would just get thrown out of court.
And murdering people is a entirely different ball park.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40829020]how would being a murderer get you in touch with other ones? is there like a murderer convention where you have to murder someone to gain entry? by possessing drugs, if they were to "deal" it, they'd catch someone. same goes for CP.[/QUOTE]
Hypothetically. What if they could catch a murderer by murdering, or a rapist by raping?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40829034]hypothetically, if it would help catch murderers, would it be alright for law enforcement to murder people?[/QUOTE]
Rather or not murdering would help you catch other murderers, that's not exactly how it works. If a cop was to kill, it'd basically breach what a cop does, protecting others from harm. Most of the other things an undercover can do isn't as harmful as others think.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40828971]i know.
why should they get that exemption from the law[/QUOTE]Next time, be more clear about what you're asking; I thought you wanted a legal rather than moral justification.
It's a method for catching both distributors and customers which does not increase harm (assuming they catch them before they can further distribute what they collected, which I admit is a big if) and is not entrapment.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40829048]Rather or not murdering would help you catch other murderers, that's not exactly how it works. If a cop was to kill, it'd basically breach what a cop does, protecting others from harm. Most of the other things an undercover can do isn't as harmful as others think.[/QUOTE]
so distributing cp doesn't hurt people? if not, why is it illegal?
[QUOTE=GameDev;40828223]In their defense, it caught over 5k pedos. The website was [B]not created by the government, it was seized by the government but continued to run to catch the users.[/b][/QUOTE]
misleading thread title as fuck
[QUOTE=Rocko's;40829048]Rather or not murdering would help you catch other murderers, that's not exactly how it works. If a cop was to kill, it'd basically breach what a cop does, protecting others from harm. Most of the other things an undercover can do isn't as harmful as others think.[/QUOTE]
Right. They protect others from harm. The point is that the police do not cause harm. They are allowed to do things that cause no harm.
Do you see the conclusion that automatically plops out of this premise when we let the police buy drugs and possess CP?
[QUOTE=leontodd;40828239]Does this border on entrapment? I'm not familiar with US laws though so I'm probably wrong.[/QUOTE]
It's not entrapment if THEY are approached and the people voluntarily download/buy it. It's something else if they are pushing it in people's faces. This is just a genius honeypot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.