Should website like who's a rat be able to post the identity of snitches?

news.aol.com...

Seems the feds are getting antsy again, and don't like their paid informants being rated out. Does the site have a legitimate right to out snitches, or do they not have a right?

There are three "rats of the week" on the home page of whosarat.com, a Web site devoted to exposing the identities of witnesses cooperating with the government. The site posts their names and mug shots, along with court documents detailing what they have agreed to do in exchange for lenient sentences.

Last week, for instance, the site featured a Florida man who agreed in September to plead guilty to coc aine possession but not gun charges in exchange for his commitment to work "in an undercover role to contact and negotiate with sources of controlled substances." The site says it has identified 4,300 informers and 400 undercover agents, many of them from documents obtained from court files available on the Internet.

" The reality is this," said a spokesman for the site, who identified himself as Anthony Capone. " Everybody has a choice in life about what they want to do for a living. Nobody likes a tattletale."

I do think from what I have seen, snitching does more harm than good, for our courts and society. I think if there were more consequences for this type of snitching, then society would not be better off. I have no problem with doing the right think for the right reasons, but these people seem to do it, because they will get lower sentences for their own crimes.

keep the site up....haha its news to me but no one likes a snitch

Eventually, the hole will be plugged and the site won't have anyone to post.

No one likes a snitch, but the reality is that law enforcement couldn't get their jobs done without them and life is a little better for us all when they help to get criminals off the street, not that they stay off the street for long.

[edit on 2007/5/22 by GradyPhilpott]