5 ms·

Do you really have a problem with that? They didnt make the porn. It's not like removing it would prevent it from being made in the first place. They were captu

Do you really have a problem with that? They didnt make the porn. It's not like removing it would prevent it from being made in the first place. They were capturing information on additional pedophiles. In what world are you trying to frame that as wrong.

dkopi 11y ago
Do the ends justify the means? If you're okay with the FBI running a child porn server, are you okay with the FBI creating a child porn server? How about the FBI creating its own child porn, just to catch pedophiles? How about the FBI selling drugs just to catch drug users?
- neotek 11y ago
  Your slippery slope is ludicrous, like when homophobes insist gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marry their pets.
- thefreeman 11y ago
  You are grasping at straws. Yes I am OK with the FBI temporarily leaving a child porn server up to capture more pedophiles. No I am not OK with the FBI creating child porn. Use your brain. These aren't even close to the same thing.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Yet the whole reason it is illegal to possess is because possession is considered a direct act of harm against a child comparable to (though not as severe as) production.
emergentcypher 11y ago
It doesn't matter who made it. We consider distributing it to be a horrendous crime and yet here's the FBI, distributing it. Next you'll say that the FBI should be commissioning terrorist attacks in order to bring in more terrorists. Oh, wait...
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Do you really have a problem with that? Very much so. If serving up the material isn't directly harmful to a child, it should be protected under the First Amendment to view and possess (not talking production). If serving up the material is directly harmful to a child, then the FBI was engaging in abusing children. The FBI wants to claim it is the second case when anyone else is doing it but the first case when they do it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

dkopi 11y ago

Do the ends justify the means? If you're okay with the FBI running a child porn server, are you okay with the FBI creating a child porn server? How about the FBI creating its own child porn, just to catch pedophiles? How about the FBI selling drugs just to catch drug users?

neotek 11y ago
Your slippery slope is ludicrous, like when homophobes insist gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marry their pets.
thefreeman 11y ago
You are grasping at straws. Yes I am OK with the FBI temporarily leaving a child porn server up to capture more pedophiles. No I am not OK with the FBI creating child porn. Use your brain. These aren't even close to the same thing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Yet the whole reason it is illegal to possess is because possession is considered a direct act of harm against a child comparable to (though not as severe as) production.

emergentcypher 11y ago

It doesn't matter who made it. We consider distributing it to be a horrendous crime and yet here's the FBI, distributing it. Next you'll say that the FBI should be commissioning terrorist attacks in order to bring in more terrorists. Oh, wait...

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>Do you really have a problem with that? Very much so. If serving up the material isn't directly harmful to a child, it should be protected under the First Amendment to view and possess (not talking production). If serving up the material is directly harmful to a child, then the FBI was engaging in abusing children. The FBI wants to claim it is the second case when anyone else is doing it but the first case when they do it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]