Break the law to enforce the law.

[ooge]

I will take the libertarian view on this,and say no to breaking the law to enforce the law. But I also think road checks are unconstitutional.

[john9blue]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

what was the harm prevented by this website? nabbing CP producers and preventing a great deal of CP production in the future.

so if you assume that distribution of CP is always bad (which is debatable, some say that it prevents consumers from abusing children), then the answer should be simple.

Allowing government institutions to disregard their own laws sets a very dangerous precedent. Where does that figure in your utilitarian calculus?

It's the same as the classic situation where evidence of a murder is obtained through unlawful means. If we go with it we catch a murderer, but we also implicitly tell the government that they can disregard their limitations as long as they have a good enough PR campaign to go with it.

good point, but the U.S. government has already set that precedent, so it's hard to believe that it will become some kind of "slippery slope" any more than it already has.

you're concerned about what can "realistically" be done. getting the USG to set the same standard for itself that it sets for its citizens is NOT realistic at this point (barring some kind of revolution)

i agree. more proof the two are similar. but i'm talking about what ought to be done, not what can be done. people are being hypocritical about their beliefs when it benefits them personally. lots of moral subjectivism up in here

What ought to be done is irrelevant. Only identifying the best course of action available to us matters.

Eg: What ought to be done is for all humanity to become completely unselfish, have infinite empathy, create technology that eliminates all need for production and spend all their time creating art and exploring the universe.

See? not very relevant.

So, that we ought to somehow catch all violent sex offenders and miraculously prosecute all internet pirates is equally meaningless. In reality we have to look at cost benefit analyses necessary to accomplish these things.

lol, really?

you think it's just as realistic for the FBI to choose not to set up this site as it is for all of humanity to change their fundamental nature?

also, mets was making a statement about the realistic cost of prosecuting piracy like we do CP, which i agreed with. so it's not like we're totally in fantasy land here.

[Woodruff]

i'm liking metsfan's utilitarian approach ITT (no big surprise)

what was the harm done by this website? some distribution of CP

what was the harm prevented by this website? nabbing CP producers and preventing a great deal of CP production in the future.

so if you assume that distribution of CP is always bad (which is debatable, some say that it prevents consumers from abusing children), then the answer should be simple.

Allowing government institutions to disregard their own laws sets a very dangerous precedent. Where does that figure in your utilitarian calculus?

It's the same as the classic situation where evidence of a murder is obtained through unlawful means. If we go with it we catch a murderer, but we also implicitly tell the government that they can disregard their limitations as long as they have a good enough PR campaign to go with it.

good point, but the U.S. government has already set that precedent, so it's hard to believe that it will become some kind of "slippery slope" any more than it already has.

That doesn't mean we should advocate for pouring grease onto the slope.

[john9blue]

good point, but the U.S. government has already set that precedent, so it's hard to believe that it will become some kind of "slippery slope" any more than it already has.

That doesn't mean we should advocate for pouring grease onto the slope.

i'm not saying it's a good thing lol. but i don't think that has much significance when compared to the other pros and cons.

[Haggis_McMutton]

good point, but the U.S. government has already set that precedent, so it's hard to believe that it will become some kind of "slippery slope" any more than it already has.

you're concerned about what can "realistically" be done. getting the USG to set the same standard for itself that it sets for its citizens is NOT realistic at this point (barring some kind of revolution)

Simply accepting thay the government can disregard it's own laws without any consequence is not a good way to handle it either. People should push them, on each of these issues, to be consistent. Even if they won't manage to make them consistent, the pressure will at least make them think twice when doing this in future.

Your attitude just encourages them to do a thing that you're supposedly against. How does that work?

you think it's just as realistic for the FBI to choose not to set up this site as it is for all of humanity to change their fundamental nature?

also, mets was making a statement about the realistic cost of prosecuting piracy like we do CP, which i agreed with. so it's not like we're totally in fantasy land here.

Yeah, that was a exaggeration of your stance, meant to show the problem with it.
As I've been arguing in the piracy thread, even if we accept it's immoral, the proposed solutions are still worse than not doing anything.
Similarly, even people who think that drugs are immoral, can see that the drug war is causing more harm than it is solving.

So, I'm saying, stop claiming "X is bad" and somehow reaching the conclusion that the government should stop X at any cost. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

[john9blue]

good point, but the U.S. government has already set that precedent, so it's hard to believe that it will become some kind of "slippery slope" any more than it already has.

you're concerned about what can "realistically" be done. getting the USG to set the same standard for itself that it sets for its citizens is NOT realistic at this point (barring some kind of revolution)

Simply accepting thay the government can disregard it's own laws without any consequence is not a good way to handle it either. People should push them, on each of these issues, to be consistent. Even if they won't manage to make them consistent, the pressure will at least make them think twice when doing this in future.

Your attitude just encourages them to do a thing that you're supposedly against. How does that work?

again, i'm not saying it's a GOOD THING... but it doesn't factor much into my decision because the government is doing its job.

Yeah, that was a exaggeration of your stance, meant to show the problem with it.
As I've been arguing in the piracy thread, even if we accept it's immoral, the proposed solutions are still worse than not doing anything.
Similarly, even people who think that drugs are immoral, can see that the drug war is causing more harm than it is solving.

So, I'm saying, stop claiming "X is bad" and somehow reaching the conclusion that the government should stop X at any cost. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

i think we just disagree on whether distribution of CP for a week constitutes a high cost or not. i don't think it does.

[Woodruff]

Yeah, that was a exaggeration of your stance, meant to show the problem with it.
As I've been arguing in the piracy thread, even if we accept it's immoral, the proposed solutions are still worse than not doing anything.
Similarly, even people who think that drugs are immoral, can see that the drug war is causing more harm than it is solving.

So, I'm saying, stop claiming "X is bad" and somehow reaching the conclusion that the government should stop X at any cost. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

i think we just disagree on whether distribution of CP for a week constitutes a high cost or not. i don't think it does.

I think that in order to look at this objectively, you have to ignore that it is in regards to CP. The actual problem here doesn't have to do with CP, but rather with the government being allowed to break rules with impunity. Whether it is "reasonable" or not in this particular situation is largely irreleveant to the actual problem itself.

[john9blue]

I think that in order to look at this objectively, you have to ignore that it is in regards to CP. The actual problem here doesn't have to do with CP, but rather with the government being allowed to break rules with impunity. Whether it is "reasonable" or not in this particular situation is largely irreleveant to the actual problem itself.

i mean, the government breaks its own rule of "don't kill other people" all the time

it also breaks "don't steal money from people" all the time

that's the nature of government. that's why government needs to be as small as possible. it's inherently above the rules because it has a monopoly on force.

[Haggis_McMutton]

again, i'm not saying it's a GOOD THING... but it doesn't factor much into my decision because the government is doing its job.

Uh, no it isn't.
The government's job is (in this instance) to catch the bad guys without stepping out of its legal bounds.

i think we just disagree on whether distribution of CP for a week constitutes a high cost or not. i don't think it does.

That's not the cost. Letting the government get away with prosecuting those guys even though they obtained the evidence by illegal means is the cost.

[BigBallinStalin]

again, i'm not saying it's a GOOD THING... but it doesn't factor much into my decision because the government is doing its job.

Uh, no it isn't.
The government's job is (in this instance) to catch the bad guys without stepping out of its legal bounds.

So, if the law explicitly allowed for such an operation, then you'd have no problem with this? What's really your standard here?

[Haggis_McMutton]

again, i'm not saying it's a GOOD THING... but it doesn't factor much into my decision because the government is doing its job.

Uh, no it isn't.
The government's job is (in this instance) to catch the bad guys without stepping out of its legal bounds.

So, if the law explicitly allowed for such an operation, then you'd have no problem with this? What's really your standard here?

If the law allowed for it I wouldn't have a problem with the operation. (though I might have a problem with the law, but that's a different issue, it wouldn't be the FBI's fault for following a bad law).

My stance is that the government shouldn't be allowed a free pass to disregard its rules just because we really hate pedophiles. Doing such diminishes the rights of all citizens.

We all have to live with the laws restricting our freedom as they are, good and bad. If there is any hope of this being a just society then the government has to also abide by the laws restricting their freedom, good and bad.
If they really can't catch pedophiles without these types of operations, then petition to change the law and we'll talk. Simply disregarding the law is not an option (unless I can also disregard laws I find inconvenient without any fear of repercussion)

[Metsfanmax]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

[Woodruff]

I think that in order to look at this objectively, you have to ignore that it is in regards to CP. The actual problem here doesn't have to do with CP, but rather with the government being allowed to break rules with impunity. Whether it is "reasonable" or not in this particular situation is largely irreleveant to the actual problem itself.

i mean, the government breaks its own rule of "don't kill other people" all the time

Not quite. It's actually not necessarily against the law to kill someone else.

it also breaks "don't steal money from people" all the time

For instance?

that's the nature of government. that's why government needs to be as small as possible. it's inherently above the rules because it has a monopoly on force.

So you don't believe that the U.S. Constitution has any authority then?

[Woodruff]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

[Woodruff]

My stance is that the government shouldn't be allowed a free pass to disregard its rules just because we really hate pedophiles. Doing such diminishes the rights of all citizens.

Bingo. In fact, it is the MOST important the rules be followed in cases against those we most dislike, as that is where we are most likely to be willing to overlook the rules. It is those cases against those individuals we most dislike that actually establish the bounds of our rules.

[BigBallinStalin]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

On entrapment:


http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... 9-11-world

[john9blue]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

you guys seem shocked that the government would actually do something like this, perhaps because you actually had faith in the goodness of government in the first place, unlike me. this really is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the things our government does.

[Metsfanmax]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

On entrapment:


http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... 9-11-world

Thanks, that was a nice read.

[Woodruff]

haggis and woody, i understand where you guys are coming from (and i think it's ironic in several ways that i'm arguing for government overreach to prosecute CP distributors) but i don't think you have a legal basis. by your logic, you could prosecute a member of the FBI for seizing CP, or you could prosecute a cop for possessing illegal drugs after seizing them from a drug dealer, or possessing dangerous weapons that they took from criminals... etc.

That's actually a painfully ridiculous comparison to make. Did it make sense when you typed it?

you guys seem shocked that the government would actually do something like this, perhaps because you actually had faith in the goodness of government in the first place, unlike me.

I don't have faith in "the goodness of government". I DO have a belief that the Constitution is important. I DO have a belief that our law enforcement should actually follow the law.

this really is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot of the things our government does.

That's terrible reasoning.

[Woodruff]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

On entrapment:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... 9-11-world

Good information. But it didn't really clarify things. In fact, if anything, it muddied the waters in my mind. If the website was not "available", then the individuals who accessed it after the FBI took it over factually would not have been able to access it if they hadn't taken it down. That's unavoidable. The crime literally could not have happened. Seems like pretty strong inducement to me.

As well, that whole page seemed like one huge excuse for the Patriot Act, which is a disgusting thing in and of itself.

[Phatscotty]

[ooge]

Road checks constitutional or not? support or don't?

[BigBallinStalin]

No one was saying that the FBI did actually break the law in this case. Historically there are plenty of cases where the government does things that ordinary citizens are not permitted to do. When patches says "break the law" to enforce the law, he's really referring to such cases, where the law allows the government to do something that an ordinary citizen would be punished for.

I would like to see where the law specifies that it's ok for the FBI to run a child pornography activity.

On entrapment:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publi ... 9-11-world

Good information. But it didn't really clarify things. In fact, if anything, it muddied the waters in my mind. If the website was not "available", then the individuals who accessed it after the FBI took it over factually would not have been able to access it if they hadn't taken it down. That's unavoidable. The crime literally could not have happened. Seems like pretty strong inducement to me.

As well, that whole page seemed like one huge excuse for the Patriot Act, which is a disgusting thing in and of itself.

RE: the underlined, since substitutes for CP exist and are just as easily downloadable, then I can't agree with that sentence. The crime of downloading CP would've happened regardless of the FBI's website.

[Phatscotty]

Road checks constitutional or not? support or don't?

Since you actually made a post that does not focus entirely on incorrectly stereotyping, mislabeling, and smearing conservatives... You should know I don't support that (but you get a break cuz you haven't been around to see my road-check threads/posts).

We still have some of our rights, it's just that few people exersice them (most people just put up with it), and that's tragically understandable because our schools do not teach those things anymore, and sometimes even get in trouble when they do.

[Woodruff]

Road checks constitutional or not? support or don't?

Certainly unConstitutional.