Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
I frequently see cp discussed on here so maybe there will be some input to shed light on something that really bothers me. First off, porn has never bothered me and I've often imbibed in viewing it myself,however I go to two sites only that I know are clean and have done so since a teenager(I. Don't wanna see weird shit and I don't wanna wreck my computer!!). I don't understand how someone can look at porn sights that obviously aren't clean- adware, viruses, redirect you too illegal/ CP. I've seen it happen,and it seems like common sense to me that if one encounters a site like that,one would NEVER revisit the site?!!
and isn't it common knowledge that more often than not, porn sites carry viruses and malware, so you have to be very cautious to avoid ruining your computer?!
I had an ex who I would see in his browser history,pages with pictures and videos off VERY OBVIOUSLY well under18 yr old girls, sometimes little kids, mixed in with the "normal" porn on said site. It was usually not the same site though, but they were always compilation sites (videos and pictures divided by category)and the CP would be plain as day on the home page under "teen" or "amature". A couple times there was a site or two that looked like links listed to only illegal (child and snuff), no other normal porn.
He would SWEAR two things:
"The web sites say 18 and over , all over the place,and I don't think those women look anything under18" but I'm sorry, what illegal porn site is going to admit to being under 18 or illegal!! (Granted,I know they're our there,and in fact DID note some times the titles would say "ILLEGAL" or "6yr old girl etc..") BUT WHAT PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND THINKS THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ADULT? How can that be rationalized???
H would also say these sites were not the original sites he was using, but that they would pop up as a result of a hacked link redirect,and then when that would happen,he'd immediately exit of that site . Now,I know that DOES happen, but WHY then keep going to the original site that has proved untrustworthy??? (Unless you're anticipating/hoping for that to happen..)
If the desired result is not child porn (which of course he'd deny for the 18+yrs old. Posted disclaimer) wouldn't common sense dictate that this wouldn't keep happening if he chose to stick with safe sites??
The more I read about CP on here,the mishaps of people both innocent and guilty,the more I don't understand how and why CP happens,of both the innocent and guilty....
Was this man a CP addict or something? And if so,how could he bold faced lie to me so poorly, or expect me to believe his denials???? He was a compulsive liar, but I'm in NO way frilly or girlychild like in my appearance (very curvy, woman body) and sex life and physical chemistry were great. This plagues my mind...
Sorry if this post is tmi for some...but I just don't understand CP or my encounter with it with my ex
and isn't it common knowledge that more often than not, porn sites carry viruses and malware, so you have to be very cautious to avoid ruining your computer?!
I had an ex who I would see in his browser history,pages with pictures and videos off VERY OBVIOUSLY well under18 yr old girls, sometimes little kids, mixed in with the "normal" porn on said site. It was usually not the same site though, but they were always compilation sites (videos and pictures divided by category)and the CP would be plain as day on the home page under "teen" or "amature". A couple times there was a site or two that looked like links listed to only illegal (child and snuff), no other normal porn.
He would SWEAR two things:
"The web sites say 18 and over , all over the place,and I don't think those women look anything under18" but I'm sorry, what illegal porn site is going to admit to being under 18 or illegal!! (Granted,I know they're our there,and in fact DID note some times the titles would say "ILLEGAL" or "6yr old girl etc..") BUT WHAT PERSON IN THEIR RIGHT MIND THINKS THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ADULT? How can that be rationalized???
H would also say these sites were not the original sites he was using, but that they would pop up as a result of a hacked link redirect,and then when that would happen,he'd immediately exit of that site . Now,I know that DOES happen, but WHY then keep going to the original site that has proved untrustworthy??? (Unless you're anticipating/hoping for that to happen..)
If the desired result is not child porn (which of course he'd deny for the 18+yrs old. Posted disclaimer) wouldn't common sense dictate that this wouldn't keep happening if he chose to stick with safe sites??
The more I read about CP on here,the mishaps of people both innocent and guilty,the more I don't understand how and why CP happens,of both the innocent and guilty....
Was this man a CP addict or something? And if so,how could he bold faced lie to me so poorly, or expect me to believe his denials???? He was a compulsive liar, but I'm in NO way frilly or girlychild like in my appearance (very curvy, woman body) and sex life and physical chemistry were great. This plagues my mind...
Sorry if this post is tmi for some...but I just don't understand CP or my encounter with it with my ex
you forget, checking such a thing out could also be the result of disbelief, dumb curiosity or something akin to like watching a train wreck or watching a horror movie. you KNOW that so-n-so is gonna get attacked and butchered but can't look away. it can and does happen.
I'm going to respond paragraph by paragraph hoping to keep things clear.
Paragraph 1 - I never said the government taking over an existing site was automatically entrapment so I'm not sure where that's coming from but I did touch on the type of scenario you describe here. For John Doe A entrapment would not be available as a defense however it might be available to John Doe B depending on the exact facts of the case. The first question would be did the government play any part in directing John Doe B to the site. If the government was not involved in directing John Doe B then obviously an entrapment inquiry is out of the question but if the government was involved somehow then the next question would be did that involvement rise to the level of inducement. If the government involvement did rise to that level then the entrapment inquiry progresses to the question of predisposition which be for a jury to decide based on the particular facts of the case presented during a trial.
Paragraph 2 - Again. I never said the government taking over a website was automatically entrapment. I just pointed out circumstances where doing so could easily be entrapment. Everything else you describe here can and has been done in the past. My argument here would be that the government had a duty to destroy access to the contraband material rather than continue to release it to unauthorized, unknown individuals subjecting the individuals depicted in the contraband to further unnecessary victimization. The standard of review would be was the operation reasonably tailored to achieve the goal of apprehending people involved in the trade of CP. It could be seen as reasonable to allow the government to either operate or just allow a site to run while they monitor traffic but does it remain reasonable once the continued victimization of the nation's most vulnerable is considered?
Paragraph 3 - By and large what you describe here is a text book example of virtue testing and rife with entrapment issues but isn't necessarily entrapment. To virtue test each and every person that visits the site absent any reasonable suspicion that any given individual has a predilection to view CP is not reasonable or permissible police behavior. The operation is not reasonably tailored to target only those with a predilection to view CP. As EchoMoon points out, a large number of non-predisposed individuals are likely to click the link to the illegal content. This group of people would be the "unwary innocent" that an entrapment defense is meant to protect from prosecution and remember ready acceptance does not automatically equal being predisposed. This would be the equivalent of the drug dealer accosting every passer-by asking them to by drugs. Would the crime have likely occurred absent government involvement? For some yes for others no. Questions surrounding the legitimacy of the operation would have to be settled before a subjective entrapment inquiry would even begin but there could be numerous ways to show inducement. How were the links presented? Was one more prominent than the other? How clear was it that one link led to illegal content? How was that information presented, was it in the form of a warning or did it look more like an advertising gimmick?. Was there anything stating all models were 18 or older? Inducement is a fairly low threshold and once any evidence that can support inducement is presented the government then has to prove predisposition beyond all reasonable doubt which is going to take more than "he clicked a link"
Paragraph 4 - Under an objective entrapment test the focus is on the actions of the government. A defendant's actions or lack of actions are irrelevant so the question as to what a normal law abiding would or would not do is moot.
Paragraph 5 - Still virtue testing. The real question isn't what induced an individual to click a link but was the operation a legitimate use of government power?
Paragraph 6 - In many jurisdictions yes entrapment is a legislated protection but at the federal level it's a judicially created protection against government overreach. When I spoke of shocking the conscience of the court I wasn't talking about entrapment per se. I was talking about the government willfully allowing and encouraging the re-victimization of CP victims so that it would then have someone to prosecute.