The FBI is soliciting nude pics of child porn and it is legal for them to do so????

so you fight a crime by committing a crime..
dat suks, these peeps should be locked up...

reply to post by purplemer


No the OP just wants to tie law enforcements hands so that they can't investigate or prosecute these sick people.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer

 

No the OP just wants to tie law enforcements hands so that they can't investigate or prosecute these sick people.

edit on 3/2/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

It isn't tying anybody's hands... it is protecting the innocent. The FBI could prosecute without having to do this to an innocent child. They DO NOT need to further exploit any kids. They could pose as kids in chat rooms and they can use links that dead end and captures their ip address that show intent but they DO NOT NEED to repost the pictures they have confiscated. ALL they need is intent, THEY DO NOT to post or make magazines of already traumatized kids. Unless it is your job to make these child porn sites or magazines for the FBI and you would lose your job by not keeping this practice going then I see no valid arguement in your hypothesis and I have tried to see it from your point of view. I am trying to look at it objectivly but the evils of reposting the pics by the FBI far outweigh the pros in this argument because the law is supposed to protect not subject innocents to unsafe conditions or retraumatize kids.

reply to post by whatukno


No, purp is correct.

Hosting child pornography is a crime in the US.
The FBI is hosting child pornography.

There is not much room for debate. You can argue that you believe it is acceptable for the FBI to take illegal actions during their "investigations" aka fishing scheme. However, they are committing an illegal act.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer

 

No the OP just wants to tie law enforcements hands so that they can't investigate or prosecute these sick people.

edit on 3/2/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

Whatukno, I am going to have to say that you can't win this argument with the invalid weak point you made about tying the law enforcements hands. There are legal ways to get the evidence they need without having to expose the kids anymore than they already were.

reply to post by agentblue


But these are pictures that they have already confiscated from cases they have already prosecuted, it's not like they are taking the pictures themselves, they aren't re traumatizing anyone unless they are forcing kids to view there own pictures.

It's like using real drugs in a drug sting. or real women in a prostitute sting.

The question remains why don't you want law enforcement to be able to investigate and stop child porn peddlers and users?

Originally posted by whatukno
Nevermind this is obviously just one of those NAMBLA defending threads made by people who think that child porn is ok and that finding people who use child porn or investigating crimes in this country is somehow wrong. I think it's sick, I think that getting people who trade in child pornography off the streets is a good thing but obviously my attitude is the minority in this thread. Seems like the majority in this thread think that it's just fine for these sickos to be watching this stuff and trading this stuff and they don't think that law enforcement should do anything about it.

Dude seriously? What are you smoking? I think EVERYBODY in this thread wants any and everybody involved with child porn locked up. Where on earth are you detecting any sort of support for this behavior? I really think you need to step back and re-read this whole thread over again.

You are either being willfully dense or completely unable to comprehend what you read. Majority of this thread thinks it's OK? Care to post one quote that would lead you to believe that? Jeez sometimes I REALLY worry about the sanity of people on this forum.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer

 

No the OP just wants to tie law enforcements hands so that they can't investigate or prosecute these sick people.

edit on 3/2/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

Do you have some sort of history with the OP or something that would cause you to attack him/her over and over again? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something, not ONE person ANYWHERE in this thread said they support in any way, shape, or form these perverts.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by agentblue

 

But these are pictures that they have already confiscated from cases they have already prosecuted, it's not like they are taking the pictures themselves, they aren't re traumatizing anyone unless they are forcing kids to view there own pictures.

It's like using real drugs in a drug sting. or real women in a prostitute sting.

The question remains why don't you want law enforcement to be able to investigate and stop child porn peddlers and users?

Did anybody say they don't want LE to investigate and stop these people? No.... they didn't. Me and the OP are saying spreading around these disgusting pictures of innocent victims is wrong.

Think about it, if you were FORCED to do pornography, EVEN AS AN ADULT would you want the FBI spreading the video all over the internet? I know I sure as hell would not. These poor children need to be protected, NOT exploited again.

The FBI should be combing over EVERY inch of the internet in search of this smut, and when they find it, HUNT THESE PEOPLE DOWN and throw them in jail for the rest of their lives. Putting more of it out there is NOT a good idea.

Imagine another scenario, the FBI distributes this crap, then some pervert saves it to his HD and burns a DVD and distributes it to all his sicko friends. How is that a good thing? The whole point should be to REMOVE these videos and pictures from circulation, not increase the volume of it going around. That's just ridiculous.

And I'm not going to acknowledge anymore of your posts, because it's obvious you are just trolling, have a learning disability, or have some sort of feud with the OP that I'm not going to get drawn into.

reply to post by whatukno


Apparently you don't understand , just because you close the gap on one person doing it to the child by prosecution, they are opening another hole for the child's security by allowing the child's photos back on the net for the world to see. They are essentially making a continual retraumatizing situation if the said child was ever recognized by a potential perv that lives in her or his neighborhood and recognized the child. Or if the pics were ever reposted and the was recognized by someone she knows that accidently saw her pic, by accidently clicking on the wrong link. Like I stated before the FBI had a link to a kid's website for dress up dolls and my daughter unbeknowst saw pics of young girls her age( she was eight) having sex with grown men and women. She accidently clicked on the link and was exposed to child porn and it does happen on accident because the popup link was an advertisement for kids bikinis for your little doll because she was on a computer doll dress up game and didn't state !@#$ about click on me to see naked preteens having sex. Essentially my child was traumatized by their acts of neglegence and because it was gov't database ip, it went right through the two net nanny software screens I had installed on my computer.

reply to post by James1982


I have no idea who or anything about whatuknow and I have no beef with this dude but I may be with james on the idea that maybe whatuknow may have a learning disability and can't comprehend the scope of my original post or any other post of anybody. I have made and everybody else has made this very clear that what the fbi is doing is wrong! I too will boycott anymore of whatuknow's logic on this thread. With that, the thread is all yours to jumble up with an erroneous useless crap whatuknow. I pray that you find a sylvan learning center and find a way to cope with your dyslexia or whatever you have because law enforcement would be the only people i know of that would have an utter backwards ideology like that. I am sorry if for any reason someone has to read this petty squabble. best of luck to you whatuknow

Let's cool down everyone. There is no need to resort to name calling. Let's stick to the social and legal implications of the topic and not focus on each other.

Thank you.

Originally posted by whatukno
Do you expect them to fight crime by not doing anything?

when they break the law trying to catch
criminals, they are no better than the criminals.

This is also the case with the CIA and
their operations in terrorism and drugs.

If you eliminated the FBI - you would eliminate 96%
of child porn.

If you eliminated the CIA - you would eliminate 96%
of terrorism, drugs and covert murder.

sounds like an easy choice to me.

Between the 2 entities combined
make up about 96% of crime in the US.

And our tax dollars are funding this chit.
We as citizens are an accessory to
all the above criminal activity by direct
support.

Originally posted by whatukno
But these are pictures that they have already confiscated from cases they have already prosecuted,

then they need to be destroyed,
not thrown back into circulation.

There are lots of ways to catch criminals
without breaking the law.

This is one of the reasons why the
populace is losing respect for law
enforcement. They can't tell the
difference between the cops and
the robbers.

I just don't understand why people are defending pedophiles and child porn traffickers. Do you hate the government so much that you would rather defend pedophiles and sickos than let the government try and catch them?

This is what I am hearing. That you people want to tie law enforcement's hands so that they don't catch these people. Reading this thread it seems that you would just rather have these sick people out on the streets where they can prey on our children rather than give law enforcement tools to use to get these bastards.

The FBI in these cases aren't using new photos of children that they have taken themselves, they aren't creating child porn, they are recycling old evidence targeting these child porn rings. These photos were already taken and all it takes is a little cookie code to track who is DLing this smut and go get them,. But instead, because of peoples hatred for the government and hatred for LEO they decide to side with child porn peddlers and users? Really?

Maybe WUK is a "Paid DisInfo Agent" working for the FBI

(I'd have a second line except I'm too cracked up by the line above!)

C'mon folks, whatever happened to just ignoring the noise and continuing on with the discourse? Must the bait be risen to on every occasion? Everybody has a "hot button" - a topic that twists on the emotions to the point that nothing counter may be heard. I see where the end justifies the means is being applied in WUKs position.
But I don't understand the illogical corrollary that the OP is condoning anything, or that republication of the offensive material is excusable on any grounds. WUK is entitled to his opinion and we must admit that contrary opinions drive up readership on a thread as more folks feel compelled to chime in (myself included).

ganjoa

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer

 

No the OP just wants to tie law enforcements hands so that they can't investigate or prosecute these sick people.

edit on 3/2/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)

me not sure. surely the law enforcements have a role to play if they are creating most of this stuff then they are encouraging peeps and perpetuating the crime. entrapment should be a crime too, soz me think they well over stepped the mark.

reply to post by whatukno

These photos were already taken

exactly, so why can't they keep doing the same?
why can't they identify-arrest-shutdown like they did for those pics?

that didn't require entrapment in the first place

instead the police/fbi now have a monopoly on kiddie porn
sounds like they are more about eliminating the competition.
or maybe they ran out of kiddie-humpers and are just making them up?
just like they do wit terrorists
just imagine if OP's kid, not knowing better, had clicked on that link.
'so it was your kid that clicked the link,sure we've heard that one before'

ok in case you aren't an agent of F[urfag].B[oylovers].I[nternationale]. and just trolling or a 'tard,

i'll explain it to you:
your little girl/niece/granddaughter gets kidnapped
and has dirty pics taken and spread on the net
bad guys get caught ,websites are taken down
do you really want them reusing/reposting those pics?

sure, tell the victim it's all in a good cause.

cause you sound like you don't want any of those dirty pictures taken down at all,

so that you can keep looking at them.

reply to post by whatukno


I don't surf porn, but I have a problem with the person who posted it. Meaning if I am surfing regular sites like playboy or something I would expect that I don't have to worry about someone on the site being under 18. I think if there is and I am brought into questioning, I think it should be the responsibility of the person who owns the site.

What if you were to accidentally click on a spam link and it takes you to a site with illegal material, do you think that you should be charged and put on a sexual predators list? All because you went to the wrong page?

reply to post by purplemer


I don't think they are creating anything but using already confiscated pictures to identify child porn rings. I don't see the problem. If you aren't looking for that stuff you aren't likely to find it. And you certainly aren't going to be downloading it if you don't want it.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by whatukno
Do you expect them to fight crime by not doing anything?

when they break the law trying to catch
criminals, they are no better than the criminals.

This is also the case with the CIA and
their operations in terrorism and drugs.

If you eliminated the FBI - you would eliminate 96%
of child porn.

If you eliminated the CIA - you would eliminate 96%
of terrorism, drugs and covert murder.

sounds like an easy choice to me.

Between the 2 entities combined
make up about 96% of crime in the US.

And our tax dollars are funding this chit.
We as citizens are an accessory to
all the above criminal activity by direct
support.

My thoughts precisely.

I'm sure we all agree that those who get excited by child pornography are in serious need of psychological help, and those that actually took the pictures and/or committed any sexual or violent acts against children should be severely punished.

Is it a more serious crime to DEAL (i.e. be the furnisher of) child pornography and/or drugs, or is it a worse crime to be a CONSUMER of these?

The discussion point here, is that, by making more of these materials available, with the purported explanation of trying to abolish their consumption, the agencies involved are making the problem worse.

A stance I tend to agree with.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by purplemer

 

I don't think they are creating anything but using already confiscated pictures to identify child porn rings. I don't see the problem. If you aren't looking for that stuff you aren't likely to find it. And you certainly aren't going to be downloading it if you don't want it.

And this, I tend to also agree with, which makes me somewhat of a fence-sitter, I concede.

If the material is made difficult to access, meaning that there is obvious intent to access and consume child pornography, then it is an effective tool to ensnare fans of this filth, and bring them to justice, is it not?

the Billmeister