FBI 'rickrolled' paedophiles. Is it entrapment?

[TSR]

if there's lots of warning saying "you're about to view child porn: do you want to continue" (perhaps not in those exact words) then i don't see a problem with it. if there's no warning (ie. "latest epp of SP") - you click a link and go to prison, then it's screwed up and i don't see how anyone could be convicted from it (nor should they be)

[Draven]

As I thought, cry cry civil rights.

I very much doubt the FBI will just leave the links active kicking around for hackers to manipulate. I also pointed out I believe they would be able to see what the referrer to the URL was so they would know if it was from a dodgy site that they deliberately set up, or for some hacker tricking somebody.

So if there is the intention to view paedo porn your complaining that the fact that they don't get to view any of it means their innocent? Why would you rather they had a wank over 3-year-old Timmy from the links set up by the authorities? Does that justify it? Would that stop the outcries about violating rights?

I don't buy that. I hope you don't either.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by D.G.E.

As I thought, cry cry civil rights.

I very much doubt the FBI will just leave the links active kicking around for hackers to manipulate. I also pointed out I believe they would be able to see what the referrer to the URL was so they would know if it was from a dodgy site that they deliberately set up, or for some hacker tricking somebody.

So if there is the intention to view paedo porn your complaining that the fact that they don't get to view any of it means their innocent? Why would you rather they had a wank over 3-year-old Timmy from the links set up by the authorities? Does that justify it? Would that stop the outcries about violating rights?

I don't buy that. I hope you don't either.

Cry, Cry civil rights? Do you reckon you look good in leather or something?

Personally, despite being disgusting, reprehensible and all kinds of bad, I don't think viewing child porn in of itself should be an offence - a flag to investigate someone on the grounds they might be committing child sex offences or to offer them counselling or somesuch. I don't think incarceration serves any purpose, in the case of someone who has just viewed something vile on the internets that is, other then serving societies rather childish reactionary views on the matter. (Somewhat justifibly reactionary granted.)

[Draven]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Cry, Cry civil rights? Do you reckon you look good in leather or something?

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by that statement. In my earlier post I was expecting people to disagree with it using the civil rights arguments, which they did.

Originally Posted by endless psych

Personally, despite being disgusting, reprehensible and all kinds of bad, I don't think viewing child porn in of itself should be an offence - a flag to investigate someone on the grounds they might be committing child sex offences or to offer them counselling or somesuch. I don't think incarceration serves any purpose, in the case of someone who has just viewed something vile on the internets that is, other then serving societies rather childish reactionary views on the matter. (Somewhat justifibly reactionary granted.)

Then we simply have very different viewpoints. Remember children have suffered in the production of these materials, so viewing them and cracking one off is ok and not an offence? I agree with you that society in general is far too reactionary towards a lot of things, but not this. Consider if it were your child, or brother, or sister, or neice, or nephew, etc.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by D.G.E.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean by that statement. In my earlier post I was expecting people to disagree with it using the civil rights arguments, which they did.

Aye, that they did. So your arguing against civil rights hence the flippant comment about wearing leather. A material associated somewhat with totalitarian types.

Then we simply have very different viewpoints. Remember children have suffered in the production of these materials, so viewing them and cracking one off is ok and not an offence? I agree with you that society in general is far too reactionary towards a lot of things, but not this. Consider if it were your child, or brother, or sister, or neice, or nephew, etc.

Should the viewing of videos disseminated through Ogrish and live leak of folks dying and the like be an offence? Arresting the people who have viewed it helps no one in the long run. The materials are still being produced, the children are still suffering and still people who realise they are sexually attracted to children can't come forward before they commit an offence.

Not saying its guaranteed they would mind, but maybe, just maybe theres a chance they would if we weren't so hysterical about it. Net result of that - less children suffer.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Aye, that they did. So your arguing against civil rights hence the flippant comment about wearing leather. A material associated somewhat with totalitarian types.

I see what you meant, however I am not totalitarian. I'm a great believer in civil rights (contrary to what I wrote I know), however I do not accept the civil rights shield being used to justify and protect paedophiles.

Originally Posted by endless psych

Should the viewing of videos disseminated through Ogrish and live leak of folks dying and the like be an offence? Arresting the people who have viewed it helps no one in the long run. The materials are still being produced, the children are still suffering and still people who realise they are sexually attracted to children can't come forward before they commit an offence.

Not saying its guaranteed they would mind, but maybe, just maybe theres a chance they would if we weren't so hysterical about it. Net result of that - less children suffer.

As you concede, it might not even work, it might make things worse people knowing they can view these materials indiscriminately without fear of prosecution. Make them feel they can get away with abusing children. It's like the old cliché goes, there is no black or white just grey. I would rather stick with the current system, with it's imperfections, than risk making it 10 times worse.

[Strider C.R.U.X.]

The FBI's Stance on entrapment...

www.fbi.gov/336DV/public_info/entrapment

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by D.G.E.

Remember children have suffered in the production of these materials, so viewing them and cracking one off is ok and not an offence?

Viewing the footage and "cracking one off" is pretty bizarre and nauseating behaviour but I agree with Keir, I don't think it should necessarily be an offence in and of itself. Purchasing the pornography should probably be an offence, and certainly distributing and producing child pornography should be very serious offences (as they quite rightly are). But it's none of my business or anyone else's what someone wants to wank off to in their own home, no matter how repulsive we might find it.
I mean, it's quite rightly not illegal to wank off to execution/snuff/gore videos if that's what floats your abnormal boat.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Viewing the footage and "cracking one off" is pretty bizarre and nauseating behaviour but I agree with Keir, I don't think it should necessarily be an offence in and of itself. Purchasing the pornography should probably be an offence, and certainly distributing and producing child pornography should be very serious offences (as they quite rightly are). But it's none of my business or anyone else's what someone wants to wank off to in their own home, no matter how repulsive we might find it.
I mean, it's quite rightly not illegal to wank off to execution/snuff/gore videos if that's what floats your abnormal boat.

Whilst I do understand your point, I simply cannot agree. The families of many of these children will not agree with you either, and similarly perhaps with the children themselves. I know it's not all black and white, i.e. some kids won't have families, but I just simply cannot agree with it.

Purely because somebody does something in "their own home" does not provide any justification or protection in my eyes. If a paedo rapes a child "their own home" does your argument still stand? It's cool cos it's their home?

[TSR]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Viewing the footage and "cracking one off" is pretty bizarre and nauseating behaviour but I agree with Keir, I don't think it should necessarily be an offence in and of itself. Purchasing the pornography should probably be an offence, and certainly distributing and producing child pornography should be very serious offences (as they quite rightly are). But it's none of my business or anyone else's what someone wants to wank off to in their own home, no matter how repulsive we might find it.
I mean, it's quite rightly not illegal to wank off to execution/snuff/gore videos if that's what floats your abnormal boat.

i honestly can't believe i've read the words "cracking 1 off to child porn shouldn't be illegal"

i know i'm likely guilty of the offence myself, but at what point do people step back and think "whoa....what am i posting??"

it's an offence because children are involved. snuff is illegal*
execution/snuff/gore all involves adults, and at least execution/snuff is illegal*
simulated execution/snuff/gore involves actors and nobody suffering. kiddie porn involves young innocents suffering. add to that a child (rightly) cannot concent to sexual acts

by viewing child porn, you are not only encouraging people to produce it (please pay to view this pic; "hey! look what i did!!"), but you're breaking child sexual concent law


* at least i thought it was, anyway


please keep in mind i typed this at work with distractions. sorry if it's not very well put together

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by D.G.E.

If a paedo rapes a child "their own home" does your argument still stand? It's cool cos it's their home?

Of course not. Harming someone for selfish ends should be very illegal in any circumstances. Like I said, production of child pornography (which, I imagine, would involve raping a child) is quite rightly extremely illegal. My point was to do with simply the act of viewing it alone, taken out of context and looked at without considering how the individual had procured it.
Taking pleasure in seeing someone being harmed, while utterly repulsive, should not be illegal. Perhaps individuals should be monitored or offered counselling, but I don't think punitive action should be taken against them. You're getting too close to "thoughtcrime" for comfort.
I think purchasing child pornography should be illegal, but simply coming into possession of it and enjoying it? I don't think there's any sense in bringing charges against a person, putting them through the justice system, and spending a whole bunch of cash for that. Monitoring? Probably. Counselling? Maybe.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by TSR

i honestly can't believe i've read the words "cracking 1 off to child porn shouldn't be illegal"

i know i'm likely guilty of the offence myself

Giggle.

Anyway, you're missing my point. I'm saying the act alone should not be illegal, for example if someone just happens to find some child pornography and enjoys it. He's sufficiently remote from the act which harmed the victim that, while repugnant, his actions should be his own business.
Going out and seeking child pornography from sources or distributors and purchasing it (or otherwise acting in a way that rewards the distributor) is a different thing entirely. You're supporting the trade and this should be dealt with severely.

My (and Keir's, I believe) examples are about the act of viewing and enjoying alone.

[Gaias Id]

Anyone who can only take pleasure from children, rape, snuff or anything else that hinges upon non-consensual activities should immediatly seek, or be forced into, psychiatric help for there own good as well as others.

Anyone who can only take pleasure from children, rape, snuff or anything else that hinges upon non-consensual activities should immediatly seek, or be forced into, psychiatric help for there own good, as well as others.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Gaias Id

Anyone who can only take pleasure from children, rape, snuff or anything else that hinges upon non-consensual activities should immediatly seek, or be forced into, psychiatric help for there own good as well as others.

Only if they're a credible threat.
Do you think a couple who enjoy acting out a rape fantasy should be forced into psychiatric care? Do you think people who find extremely gratuitously violent movies exciting should be forced into psychiatric care?
What goes on in people's heads is their own business, until they start behaving in a manner that suggests they're a credible threat to another person.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Of course not. Harming someone for selfish ends should be very illegal in any circumstances. Like I said, production of child pornography (which, I imagine, would involve raping a child) is quite rightly extremely illegal. My point was to do with simply the act of viewing it alone, taken out of context and looked at without considering how the individual had procured it.
Taking pleasure in seeing someone being harmed, while utterly repulsive, should not be illegal. Perhaps individuals should be monitored or offered counselling, but I don't think punitive action should be taken against them. You're getting too close to "thoughtcrime" for comfort.
I think purchasing child pornography should be illegal, but simply coming into possession of it and enjoying it? I don't think there's any sense in bringing charges against a person, putting them through the justice system, and spending a whole bunch of cash for that. Monitoring? Probably. Counselling? Maybe.

So if somebody comes into possession of paedophilic photographs of somebody from your family it's cool as long as I didn't pay for it? You wouldn't mind somebody wanking off to that? Like TSR said when there is supply there is demand, and it is not simply from those who pay - people will produce content regardless of whether they get paid, just simply from the notoriety of producing it. YouTube is an example.

I don't care if you paid for it or not, your still profiting from somebody elses misery.

One final point from your argument:

Originally Posted by LesMTS

My point was to do with simply the act of viewing it alone, taken out of context and looked at without considering how the individual had procured it.

You know fine well it cannot be taken out of context. It is illegal. And generally the individual will have went and procured it.

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Only if they're a credible threat.
Do you think a couple who enjoy acting out a rape fantasy should be forced into psychiatric care? Do you think people who find extremely gratuitously violent movies exciting should be forced into psychiatric care?
What goes on in people's heads is their own business, until they start behaving in a manner that suggests they're a credible threat to another person.

Rape fantasies and violent movies are both FANTASY. They are consensual and nobody is actually hurt. A child is not being raped in them. Your argument falls completely there.