Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
The title of this article speaks for itself, but if you read down further you will find that the FBI seized a child porn site and operated--yes, actually ran--- the site for several weeks before they shut it down. They offered child pornography for download.
http://tinyurl.com/kb73eh2
Now there are two questions I would like to ask---
1) Our government insists that viewing child pornography re-victimizes the children appearing in the images and videos, yet the FBI is perfectly willing to host child pornography--and re-victimize these kids--- for almost a month to anyone who wanted to download it. Does this sound like a bunch of people or an agency that really cares about the victims in those images or videos? Is it OK to re-victimize these kids when the FBI does it?? Is it OK for the FBI to break the law by offering up child pornography to catch a few viewers of child pornography?
Is it OK to break the law to enforce the law??? If our government cares so much "for the children" why in the hell are they re-victimizing those same children by taking over a web site and allowing child pornography to be viewed and downloaded??
2) Since there has been a long running battle regarding the restitution and compensation a defendant should pay the children in these images to help them with their suffering, will the FBI also pay these children the same damages and financial compensation that the courts are forcing the defendants of child pornography to pay??
The damage to the child is the same if the FBI is involved or if a regular downloader is involved. Is that not true??? In both instances the child is re-victimized every time the image is viewed---or at least that is what we are told.
And using the government's logic, by allowing others to download images from a site operated by the FBI, aren't they perpetuating the child pornography problem?? When the images are downloaded is not the FBI allowing a demand to be created which results in more images produced?? That is what they keep telling us.
Our country has waged such a War on Child Pornography and even the simplest of downloads receive an completely absurd sentence, yet here is a government agency actually offering it up for view.
This country is really a pathetic excuse for a democracy.
rewdiazepam
http://tinyurl.com/kb73eh2
Now there are two questions I would like to ask---
1) Our government insists that viewing child pornography re-victimizes the children appearing in the images and videos, yet the FBI is perfectly willing to host child pornography--and re-victimize these kids--- for almost a month to anyone who wanted to download it. Does this sound like a bunch of people or an agency that really cares about the victims in those images or videos? Is it OK to re-victimize these kids when the FBI does it?? Is it OK for the FBI to break the law by offering up child pornography to catch a few viewers of child pornography?
Is it OK to break the law to enforce the law??? If our government cares so much "for the children" why in the hell are they re-victimizing those same children by taking over a web site and allowing child pornography to be viewed and downloaded??
2) Since there has been a long running battle regarding the restitution and compensation a defendant should pay the children in these images to help them with their suffering, will the FBI also pay these children the same damages and financial compensation that the courts are forcing the defendants of child pornography to pay??
The damage to the child is the same if the FBI is involved or if a regular downloader is involved. Is that not true??? In both instances the child is re-victimized every time the image is viewed---or at least that is what we are told.
And using the government's logic, by allowing others to download images from a site operated by the FBI, aren't they perpetuating the child pornography problem?? When the images are downloaded is not the FBI allowing a demand to be created which results in more images produced?? That is what they keep telling us.
Our country has waged such a War on Child Pornography and even the simplest of downloads receive an completely absurd sentence, yet here is a government agency actually offering it up for view.
This country is really a pathetic excuse for a democracy.
rewdiazepam
There are many things wrong with our country, from how our government runs to the way society treats its own.
The seizure resulted in identifying 25 suspects plus a "small handful" identified by other means. A small handful is government speak for less than 5 so the total would be no more than 29 suspects and only 22 indictments.
Actively operating the site produced "more than a dozen" additional suspects. More than a dozen probably means 13.
So allowing the sites to run for a year plus taking them over and actively distributing child pornography under uncontrolled conditions resulted in 42 suspects. It will never be known how many more times children were victimized by the actions of the FBI but how they possibly be considered reasonable when you only developed 42 suspects which could have been (and some were) discovered by other means that didn't involve the government actively victimizing children?
the feelings of rage, disgust, heartbreak, etc are. are way to numerous to list.
the thoughts that are swirling thru my mind are chaotic. foremost is the thought of it's not just the politicians, but also the millions of people who think that this is just fine or turn their heads away because it's "for the children" and it's the government doing it for their safety.... and we know with the politicians it's more for the brownie points and the money.
the thought of the government/FBI actively offering for distribution hundreds of pics and videos of CP to catch 'someone' even if it's only one person is revolting. and we all well know it does not matter one damn bit if that someone does it deliberately, accidentally or out of dumb curiosity they are tarred with the same brush and persecuted and prosecuted with the same fervor. and of course they have the victims permission so that they can catch the "bad guys" and they are compensated for their misery and embarrassment. so that too makes it alright. it's just another form of prostitution only nastier. and we all know that the politicians for all their talk have no problem at all with supplying high priced call girls for their parties and their little side flings.
that this goes on and is being done by the FBI is well known. it's downright dirty. but like the CIA
I know, I know it is not a democracy. I knew that when I typed that in there, but I was so aggravated with the government, I just left it in. Maybe it was more sarcasm or a rhetorical statement.
The government tries to make its citizens think they live in this great democracy, but we all know that is just rubbish.
rewdiazepam
I don't know which is worse----being so dumb that you cannot see we are in a Police State or being so gullible that you just don't want to admit it.
rewdiazepam
I knew you knew Rew, it is for all of those that still need to hear it so they can realize they are cooking to death. I know when talking to my friends that are 10 yrs or more my junior that they don't see it yet, so I have to keep showing them how and then giving examples in situations they can relate to. This is because some where around 1990 or so maybe earlier, they stopped teaching children to think critically. They certainly don't cover it in college either. So not one of them really asks ANY questions about the hows and whys of the world, they just follow.
My other point is that I don't see much of a difference in the end game if the government runs the site or let's the current operators run it while they track where it is being disseminated to. The people who access CP are still going to jail and getting a ludicrous sentence. That was my same argument against entrapment. If the govt running a site is entrapment (which again I do not think it is) then why not just track who is going there and you have the same exact ending. Nothing changes by the government running the site, it changes nothing.