"Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the person pe

"Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the person personally" What the government actually _does_ determines whether there was entrapment, not their intent. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=411&page=423 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&... and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=425&page=484 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&.... In the first case, the government assisted in a crime where the intent to break the law was clearly already present. And the judgement in the second case again makes clear that entrapment relies on there being no prior evidence of criminal intent: "If the result of the governmental activity is to "implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission . . .," Sorrells, supra, at 442, the defendant is protected by the defense of entrapment". It would presumably come down to whether SlutBut offered illegal content, or whether it was requested of it.