It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Sets up Fake Child Porn Links That if Clicked Trigger Armed Raids on Users

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



But clicking on a link in a post that is clearly labeled child porn gives plenty of proof toward committing a crime.


It is either a crime or it is not. There is no "toward" in there. I say it is not. Nor is it an investigative tool, clearly designed to make an end-run against the rights protecting the sanctity of your home.



I never said one was guilty until proven innocent either. My statement of innocence can be proven with your pc seemed pretty clear but I’ll try again. They cannot prove you had intent to commit the crime as long as you hard drive is your witness. Your hard drive is the best witness you have in such an event of your innocence.


You say one thing in the first sentence, and then the opposite for the rest of the paragraph. Why should I have to prove my innocence to anyone, especially if I have committed no crime? They have no more right to search my computer with such entrapment than they do putting a camera in my shower to see if I ****-*** in the morning.



I never said you might not be arrested either, but unless they can prove intent they really can’t convict you either.


Well, by that logic I think we should just arrest everyone and make sure they're not breaking any laws.



You may be charged but those will be dropped it will not take long for a defense attorney to ask them to prove the intent or drop the charges.


I've been on court now almost a year on false charges (nothing of this nature), and it looks like I'm going to trial. And I had several impartial witnesses to the event.



I will not go to jail for your actions as there is no proof that I committed the crime.


The proof is your IP address. And that's all a molester hating jury will need to hear. Even if you did get out of it, your life would never be the same.



But if you get into a wreck with my car you are the one that will be in trouble.


You would have to prove it. In fact, if your car got hit by a cart, you would have to prove who shoved the cart into it. I would have no culpability.



Run a red light and get caught on camera if it can see your face I can fight the ticket.


Big "IF" there.



You would need to ask for the stuff from someone and have them send it if they are undercover then you’re in trouble if not you are safe for now.


"Safe for now"???

Someone could send it to you unrequested.



Protecting yourself and your computer might not be a crime but it is stupid not to do. Think of your computer like your house or car. Would you just leave either of those open for just anyone to use? In today’s world your computer is almost an extension of yourself. You can tell a lot about a person by what is on the hard drive.


That's all well and good, but that has nothing to do with committing a crime.



Also if I were on a jury and was asked to rule in favor of a lawsuit over such a charge and the person was proven to be innocent I most certainly would award them money.


I have some trouble believing that given your willingness to give up Constitutional protections in favor of rounding up potential deviants.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


There is no defence for tyrrany.

There is no excuse to expect the police to protect your children or you, its your job.

To think its ok to allow any cops do do this, LABLED WELL or not, is a nanny state mantality, also called by me "security welfair". All entitlement programs who's entitlements weren't donated and distributed by volunteers are socialist programs funded through theft of every honest citizen's hard earned resources. Be it security welfair funded threw traded freedoms by cowards and lazy fools too afraid or too lazy to provide thier own reasonable defence, or actual welfair checks provided to those unwilling or too lazy to work for thier own keep. Welfair is a form of tyrrany inflicted upon not only the one's whos properties were taken and redistributed without thier consent, but also on those it does a disservice to, the "poor" being provided for by making them comfortable in thier poverty, giveing them ZERO motivation to improve thier own lots. A thing wich just flat isn't possible in a socialist or communist state.

If the state provides your saftey, security, and welfair, what exactly are YOU supposed to do? There is another word for a total welfair state, in the old days we called it slavery.

Look, you want the state to provide everything for you, so you don't need to learn to defend your self, or work for a living, or think for your self? Great, move to Cuba, or China, or Canada (lol), or Mexico, or Venesuala, or join a hippey commune and let us constitution loving Americans who value the freedoms our fore-fathers paid for in blood, live in peace and liberty! Thanx, have a nice slavery.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And you are failing to see the obvious fact that if the link is not labeled correctly they cannot prove you had intent to commit a crime.

You can link things all day long. A simple properties search of the link will reveal it’s true destination.

Again if the link is labeled say as “huggy bears” and I happened to click it they have no case against me. They cannot prove I had the intent to commit the crime unless they can show that they might as well try to jail my dog or cat for it. No prosecutor in their right mind would try to convict a person on such shabby evidence as just clicking on a link if said link was not labeled correctly even your worst defense attorney could strike that down before it got near a court room. But a link that is labeled as 4yo_sucking in a post talking about a 4yo having sex with an adult man is another story. No jury in their right mind would not convict someone for following such on obvious link.

If you are worried about getting it in an email, and you do happen to click before checking you simply inform the police that you are being sent illegal porn and given them the email address from which it came. It is illegal to knowingly send or receive not to receive without knowledge. By knowingly they would have to show intent to commit the crime, meaning if it is not clear in the email what the link involves you are in the clear.

Technically any law can be abused you could be pulled over, ticketed and fined for 1 MPH over the posted limit. Chances are it would be thrown out since your speedometer is most likely off that much anyway, depending on the exact conditions of your car and tires. I would consider that abuse though others may not.

But I am tired of debating this it does not matter, the article makes it seem as if it is no longer in use considering the dates on everything and the terms used. If everyone here would rather have people walking around checking their kids out so be it. I already live across the street from a guy that was convicted of a sexual offence against a girl 5 years old, heck let’s just hook the dude up with nudy pic of little girls.

Raist



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



Another example for you though. If a drug dealer comes to me and offers drug and I buy and get arrested that is entrapment. If I go searching for a drug dealer and buy drugs and get arrested that is not. The difference is the searching for or it being brought to you. In this case you would be searching for child porn, see the links and click them believing there was child porn at the end of it.


Please, allow me to give a better example. It is night time, you are in a bad part of town. You stop and ask a shady-looking character for directions so you can get to where you are going. He tries to put crack in your hand. You don't take it, but you touched the bag. The "drug dealer" turns out to be a cop. He uses the fingerprint on the bag as probable cause to raid your home to find out what you were doing in that part of the neighborhood that night.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Just one more tidbit before I sign off. If they put a price tag on it, the FBI would be guilty of criminal solicitation.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Child porn and child sex abuse are the perfect Trojan Horse issue for authoritarians - even diehard civil libertarians will often totally abandon their principles, because anyone objecting to the tactic in question can be labeled as sympathetic to child molesters


Then once the tactic has been successfully grandfathered in with child abuse as the excuse, it can be used for whatever else the authorities want to use it for.

It's a time-honored tactic, exploiting what ever moral panic of the day is likely to work.

90 years ago it was "coc aine-crazed negroes"



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
It's the lesser of two evils. If I had to choose between someone watching child pornography, and that person actually harming a child, I would choose them watching it.


First, I like your posts Novus, I am not intending to target you. And when I use the word 'you' in my rant bellow, I am not really meaning 'you'.

But I need to voice this, I need to make something clear. You're overlooking it and many others seem to as well.

By watching child porn you are actually, physically, harming the children

You are viewing them as seperate things, but they are not. You say you'd rather have people watch it, then do it. The two are intrinsically connected.

If no one watched child porn, no one would create and distribute it online. Simple idea, and quite accurate. Supply and demand, so to speak.

The act of viewing the child porn, contributes and encourages these monsters to make the child porn.

The monsters that make the child porn, are actually, physically exploiting these children for sex.

So again, by viewing the child porn, you are intrinsically also exploiting children for sex.

This isn't digitally animated. Someone, somewhere, actually, physically, used these children for sex.

People keep watching it. People keep making it. It's all connected like that.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HellHound63S
 


The funny thing is everything you describe is what we have now, it's got nothing to do with socialism or communism. Not just those hippy communes, which btw are nothing like what you seem to assume.

What we would do with people who can't work if there was no kind of 'welfare' as you call it. Do you want the streets of American cities filled with beggars?

You have to think of the alternative and you can't judge everything from your own experience.

You obviously think 'welfare' is easy to get? Well after I become too disabled to work, due to a bone disease with spinal fractures and arthritis causing chronic pain and problems walking, it took me a year and half and a lawyer to get 'welfare'. For that year and a half I got about $500 and $100 in food stamps from the state, which left me with $200 for food for a month after rent, and I had to pay that year and a half back, $13,000 or there abouts! I'm not much better off now. What am I supposed to do to 'better myself'? You got a job I can do? lol

Point is 'welfare' is not this easy road for lazy people you think it is. Come live in my inner city neighbourhood and get a lesson on 'welfare' reality.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Are you suggesting that child predators only molest children because of supply and demand?

Children are exploited regardless of rather it gets put online or not, these are sickos, Having an audience has nothing at all to do with it... it doesn't influence or stop it in either scenario...



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You really don’t read my posts well do you, or you’re not sure of laws and court.

The toward a crime is the attempt to commit that crime. You have to have certain elements before it is a crime and making the attempt is a crime you can be charged for as the man in the article was.

I am not contradicting you are failing to understand.

Your intent means nothing unless you add the other elements to it. I am not going to retype all of that again you can either go back and reread it or ignore it further. To get to the forum were the post was you had to be searching for the stuff anyway that is your intent. You can search all you like and not be guilty. The actions that hook you in the attempt part are the clicking of the clearly labeled links, and failing to get anything but the FBI on your doorstep.

You are not proving your innocence. You are saying you cannot prove my guilt as long as I have this that says different. You are doing nothing but twisting words to your own choosing there.

Do you think no one ever gets arrested that is not guilty? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you expect that no one will ever be arrested unless guaranteed guilty then you are saying they are guilty until they prove otherwise. Being arrested is not a huge ordeal unless you make it one been there done that. Basically when you are arrested you are under investigation it does nothing to say you are guilty.
A hard drive is not witnesses it is either there or not witnesses are not relevant to that argument.

Again go back and read about the IP address being different for different computers hooked up to your internet. There is a difference, as long as they see how many computers you own you are clear when the extra number pops up. Unless of course you just sold you other computer then you might need to get it back to help in your case.

If you are given charge of my car you are liable for damages caused to it while you have it in your care.


Again if someone sends it to you unrequested turn it over to the cops don’t go checking out the 4 year old having sex.

Protecting yourself and your computer may not have squat to do with a crime but it is hard to say you committed a crime when you are guarding both. Besides you never answered the question so I’ll assume you would not.

How is it giving up constitutional protection when they are actively perusing the child porn? And if it was sent to you in the guise of a fake link or if the host had it as suck it is hard to prove you are guilty of a crime when there is no intent.


As I said in my last post though it seems from the wording used as well as the dates this is not longer in use.

Besides what does it matter hand over kids to the people looking this stuff up, heck let’s let Hollywood make the stuff for them to view. I’m tired of repeating law to people who refuse to hear it. It is not hard to research if you are curious, if you need to contact a lawyer and have him/her explain it to you. Maybe they can do a better job than I can.

Raist



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Are you suggesting that child predators only molest children because of supply and demand?

Children are exploited regardless of rather it gets put online or not, these are sickos, Having an audience has nothing at all to do with it... it doesn't influence or stop it in either scenario...



No no, of course not.

I am talking about child pornography. Not child molestation, abuse.

I am talking about child porn rings. Child porn websites. Not isolated cases of sex offenders. Of course it will happen regardless. But on a commercial scale? No, not without an "audience" it wont! It's on an extensive commercial scale because of the supply and demand.

It's critical to make a distinction here. A distinction between child abuse and child pornography. When you bring it to a commerical scale, then it increases exponentially because it's no longer just a sick perversion. It's a sick perverted industry $$$.

One is an adult abusing a child. The other is an adult abusing a child with the intent to profit from it. Hence entire companies are created, intricate and extensive underground rings, subscription based web sites, et cetera!

Do you see what I am getting at?

[edit on 023131p://24u40 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by ANOK
 


And you are failing to see the obvious fact that if the link is not labeled correctly they cannot prove you had intent to commit a crime.


The label can't easily be proven depending on its origin...



You can link things all day long. A simple properties search of the link will reveal it’s true destination.

Did you check the properties before clicking on your subscribed thread to make sure it actually lead here?

Thats what we are essentially going to have to start doing if this stuff gets out of control....


Again if the link is labeled say as “huggy bears” and I happened to click it they have no case against me. They cannot prove I had the intent to commit the crime unless they can show that


Do you save your chat logs? Which can be edited btw, But as Stated above, it cant be easily proven what text lead you to the site, only that you clicked the link.

Unless of course you save your logs but as stated they can be edited, so its useless, for both the defense and the prosecution...



But a link that is labeled as 4yo_sucking in a post talking about a 4yo having sex with an adult man is another story. No jury in their right mind would not convict someone for following such on obvious link.

For this to be effective, no visits outside of those that were directed by the website with the post and link, Can be valid, Meaning unless the prosecution can prove, The link visited originated from that direct forum thread, its a BS case.

Meaning someone could go to that thread click "copy link location" then visit it at another time... and it cant be proven he got that link from the page that said "4yo_sucking"

Its a bs circumstantial case... Intent cannot be proven...


If you are worried about getting it in an email, and you do happen to click before checking you simply inform the police that you are being sent illegal porn and given them the email address from which it came. It is illegal to knowingly send or receive not to receive without knowledge. By knowingly they would have to show intent to commit the crime, meaning if it is not clear in the email what the link involves you are in the clear.


Though the moral aspect of us should tell authorities of such things not because we don't want to get busted for something we didn't do, but because its the right thing to do..

We still in a free society have no obligation to get involved, nor should we be forced to out of fear.



Technically any law can be abused you could be pulled over, ticketed and fined for 1 MPH over the posted limit. Chances are it would be thrown out since your speedometer is most likely off that much anyway, depending on the exact conditions of your car and tires. I would consider that abuse though others may not.


In general Traffic citations and court, expect you to just pay the ticket and not fight it, More then often then not, If you opt to fight it, you will win, burden of proof lies on the officer not you, I've had 3 citations all BS "I've discussed them in another thread some time ago as one lead to an arrest" But none the less, No convictions and I've never paid a dime, Fight your stupid citations even if your wrong...
I've directed those I know to do the same these are people who normally just pay there ticket as its easier, typical Lazy, Complacent, Americans Guess what? Two of em have gotten tickets since I told em to do this, and what do you know, They both won in court and didn't pay a dime...


But back to the matter at hand, This is all circumstantial, It just opens up the door to take anyone regardless of intent through the legal process, potentially ruining their careers and family life, for something that can never be proven, This is about more then child porn, Its about setting a precedent, which allows them to manufacture intent, with no proof, via a thought crime which is what it is as nothing illegal has taken place, This "thought crime" will allow them into your personal property, to do with whatever they please...

This will lead to much more then child porn, The Government has proven time and time again that they will use your fear and misguided emotions, to take from you everything, this is no different.

When Government presents to us such an opening for potential abuse, its our duty as Citizens to seek out every potential abuse, and present to them a means of going about it, without allowing the potential for those abuses.



[edit on 24-3-2008 by C0le]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sorry dude you fell directly in my little ideoligy trap.

That you need money donated to you for the betterment of your life is not in question. The question is WHO should provide it? Should the tax payers be forced to exept you as a financial burden, if your totaly unable to provide for yourself, or your family or loved ones are not able? Why would you feel ok excepting stollen goods, even if you really needed them? When exactly did the taxpayers sign a contract with you that if you can't work they would provide for you, isn't that called AFLAC? What do the taxpayers recieve in return for thier propety being transfered to you?

Do you know that Americans are by FAR the most generous nation that ever has had thier charity recorded? Do you think you do those kind souls justice by thinking your ENTITLED to thier tax money that was supposed to be spent on the defence of the nation, the infrastructure, the start of space commerce, the regulation of foriegn trade, and interstate commerce?

I too couldn't work for a while, but my family was able to help out, by the kindness of thier hearts, and they were compensated by a tax break (they got to keep more of thier own money in return for thier charity). I was able to repay a small portion of thier kindness by helping them around the house, and later by working light duty in exchange for little to no money. This was charity, not welfair entitlements, I fully agknowledged I had no RIGHT to thier money and support, and I thanked them and honoered thier sacrifice as best I could/can.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

BACK ON TOPIC: Anything provided to you by the state wich the state then takes responsibility for provideing to you is called welfair. We can't have nukes in the malitia or we wouldn't even need a national millitary, and it wouldn't help to have 50 malitias implamenting 50 diffrent defence and foriegn trade policies either. Those were deemed nessisary by the constitution.

BUT, you can and SHOULD protect your own children from child pornographers, the state can't do it as well as you can, and the state will use this newly granted ability to protect themselves from you, when you ask for your freedom to protect your own child again.

It is fear and ignornace wich lead you FBI supporters here to believe that you need them, or that they can be trusted with your freedoms anymore than child molesters can be trusted with your children. One more quoet:

"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every things else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. " Patrick Henery

@ Lucid Lunacy-
Do you understand what librataian means? Do you understand what socialism means? Its makes as much sence as if you said your a child-rights advocate/ childmolester! Socialism is anti-liberty, liberty is anti-socialist. Cool avatar but I think one of those words definitions may have been lost on you. Liberty is not anarchy either, sorry. To thine own self be true!



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HellHound63S
reply to post by ANOK

Sorry dude you fell directly in my little ideoligy trap...


Sry dude I didn't fall into any trap.

The point is what is the alternative? Can you spare a dime?

If a society isn't willing to provide for its citizens (man I've used that word a lot tonight lol) who can't provide for themselves, then it isn't a society worth living in. Would you rather me starve. What happens when you can't work?

But having said that I didn't mention that it was my service to this country, the USA, that gave me the bone disease in the first place, not that they'll admit to it. So you still don't think this country is responsible for my being able to feed and house myself? I'll tell ya, no one is getting rich on $900 a month buddy. If I hadn't served this country I could be working and making money, damned if you do and damned if you don't...

Don't make assumptions about people who need help from the state, thank you.

Also your claim that America is the most generous country is arrogant bollox...


[edit on 24/3/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HellHound63S
@ Lucid Lunacy- Do you understand what librataian means? Do you understand what socialism means?


I understand it enough to know how to spell it


And yes, I think I understand it more then the average randomly chosen Joe Shmoe. As I read stuff, and like to learn. And buy books, and read that stuff too. What where you getting at? Or were you just attacking me with subtle insults?


Its makes as much sence as if you said your a child-rights advocate/ childmolester! Socialism is anti-liberty, liberty is anti-socialist. Cool avatar but I think one of those words definitions may have been lost on you. Liberty is not anarchy either, sorry. To thine own self be true!


So you are equating a 'libertarian socialist' to a child porn advocate!? Thanks, that's nice
And I am the one that doesn't know what the political philosophy entails?
...

Wiki @ Libertarian Socialism

Yes this is closely related to Anarchism. And yes I feel anarchism supports liberty.

FYI, these are personal attacks and is against ToC I believe. I am quite resillent however! Not bothered one bit
Just giving you a heads up is all. I would respond more to your inquiry about my political views, but that would clearly be OT. New thread? U2U?

btw: you didn't address anything I said in a post in this thread, so what sparked this? I am not upset or angry, just curious.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





But having said that I didn't mention that it was my service to this country, the USA, that gave me the bone disease in the first place, not that they'll admit to it. So you still don't think this country is responsible for my being able to feed and house myself? I'll tell ya, no one is getting rich on $900 a month buddy. If I hadn't served this country I could be working and making money, damned if you do and damned if you don't...


I am a vet as well, but what your getting isn't an entitlement, its compensation, GET IT RIGHT! If your a vet you can reasonably expect to be compensated for injuries incurred during service, that's pay not welfair! DON'T EVER call it welfair! How dare you presume that a soldier's pay is a hand out?! Even a government worker who incurred injury in service to the nation should be compinsated! You have been brainwashed into thinking its "welfair" to be payed a fair wage! WAKE UP!



Also your claim that America is the most generous country is arrogant bollox...


I have lost the source, but it was about the aid given to tsunami survivers. Private American citizens gave more money goods and services to the survivers than the US government, and all the european contries combined I believe. If i find it I'll post it.

On topic: Let's recap here. Welfair= An involuntary charity handed out by the federal government to whom THEY choose, paid for with tax payer money/freedoms/properties, to the deteriation of liberty, and even to the one the charity is aimed at.

Its welfair for the FBI to take my rights away in order to look after the children of lazy un-interested parents, that don't know the where abouts of thier own children.

Charity= Help or aid given over by freewill, to whom the giver chooses to give it, for the reasons they choose to give it.

I geuss you COULD give away your own personal freedoms to accidently click the wrong link in exchange for not needing to be responsible for your own child. Another way for this to be charity would be for YOU to donate your own time, effort, and loving care to your OWN child, and not have the need for the FBI to conduct draconian raids on its own citizens.

Welfair is socailism based on the idea your property is really the state's to redistribute as IT sees fit and not compatible with freedom. Charity is FREEDOM based and out of the kindess of the charitable persons heart.

@lucid lunecy- Not a personal attack, an inquisitive inquiery. Your for anarchy but you make fun of those not held down by the rules of spelling, set up by "the man"? The wiki link set me straight, on your philosiphy, I hadn't heard thet term before. it seems relavent to the topic to me, as this is about security welfair entitalemnts, wich socailism supports.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by HellHound63S]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HellHound63S
@lucid lunecy- Not a personal attack, an inquisitive inquiery. Your for anarchy but you make fun of those not held down by the rules of spelling, set up by "the man"?




You in affect called me a child molestor and a child porn advocate. You, without even talking to me before, without provocation from me, claimed I didn't know anything about libertarianism.

I wasn't making fun of you for spelling. Come on man! You came out of no where claiming I didn't know anything about Libertarianism, but you didn't even come close to spelling it correctly... wasn't even the same word. Puh-lease.

That's less inquiry, and more personal attack. If you can't see that then perhaps you should goto social (not socialism) etiquette school.


The wiki link set me straight, on your philosiphy, I hadn't heard thet term before. it seems relavent to the topic to me


Thanks for denying ignorance then
I appreciate that



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Child porn and terrorism... two of the most successful boogey-man campaigns to strip people of their liberty and destroy the lives of the innocent.


Totally agreed. Maybe add "the war on drugs' to the list of silly crusades.

Issues of pornography and age of consent aside, I think we can all agree than sexualizing children is just sick.

So they can track your IP, but what does that mean? I've seen automatic programs that crawl the web downloading images...used I assume mostly for finding pornography...maybe one of these hits up a link to this "child porn" because the text contains erotic language, and suddenly the user is raided? There are lots of reasons one might inadvertently stumble upon these links (maybe via stumbleupon? for those who use that tool
). I have a wide array of interests and often follow strange links just to see where they lead, whether it be bizarre or disturbing. I have no interest in seeing naked kids, but if I'm browsing, I might well click on one of these links just to see if its real. That might make me a bit odd but I don't think it makes me a criminal.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   



You could argue that someone who might not otherwise steal a car would succumb to the temptation of a hot ride with the keys in the ignition; you can't argue that if somebody clicks on a kiddie porn link, that's exactly what they're looking for.



I disagree. First of all people are curious about all kinds of thing- then realize they were not curious at all. Some people will masochistically terrorize themselves by looking at shocking things (Faces of Death and Inhumanities videos) and sites like rotten dot com. Someone may even go to a site or an advertised site because they have heard so much about kiddie porn- have never seen it. The "taboo" aspect also creates more fascination than prohibition. Someone might also accidentally click a link they did not intend to and they get "rickrolled" into a problem. Maybe a mental health student Googles the search term "kiddie porn" or incest or some issue they are studying and click the link- Ooops there goes that grade- career- life...

There are many more reasons- but I made my point.

As horrible as child abuse is and every way- I for one am sick to death of the FBI, police, CIA and everyone else who exploit abused children (either safely or not) to do this kind of fascist crap. If they did their job the right way and for the right reasons and go after the right people they would not have any problem catching predators- and there would be no collateral damage or "acceptable" losses.

When it comes to children, especially if you have them it is nearly impossible to not give these facist pigs anything including supporting something as lame as this latest scam. It is because people do not think it through and make an immediate judgment in favor of saving abused children.

No matter what you may believe or how you came to believe it- this has nothing to do with catching predators and it certainly has nothing to do with protecting children either.

Remember Avian is naive spelled backwards and people who think like this pay $3.00 for a bottle of water!



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by hikix
 


Somehow I think FBI is targeting people who look at porn of individuals younger than teens.


Pedophilia is technically defined as the sexual interest in prepubescent children.

Of course, if you watch dateline, you see guys getting busted for an interest in fully developed and sexually active sixteen year old girls. Sure, its illegal and just plain bad taste, but from a biological perspective, its normal. Thats why you see a huge market for "teen" pornography - in this case meaning 18 and 19 (depending on the laws of your country, I guess) - and you see girls who in this age range who look younger, or who are dressed up or whatever to look even younger than they are....

I'm kind of rambling here (half asleep, sorry...) but my point is that lots of pr0n on the net is spun as "teen" porn even when the girl is my mom's age just cuz she's wearing pigtails and a schoolgirl outfit. so who's to know what they're going to get when they click a link?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join