Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.
Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....
Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.
What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?
But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.
Possessing it is a crime as well, and isn't something challenged by most people.
Then this guy didn't posses any, or it isn't a crime, because this guy is not charged, arrested nor convicted. But what IS a crime is what the FBI did with Best Buy and how the FBI botched the case that apparently could have easily put a child porn viewer behind bars, where no crimes are ever committed at all.
He had stuff in his possession that was tossed out due to a bad warrant. It only means legally the material does not exist. In reality he possessed illegal materials.
But they only got even THAT far by breaking the law in the first place! Again, if they want people THAT bad, they should focus on the people MAKING the stuff. They don't even have time to investigate numerous warnings of a crazy kid turned shooter in Florida, they haven't the resources to worry about every little creep that likes just looking at kids. We have a legal system so backed up with low level crap that it takes months and years now to process a case. If we just focused on and stopped the makers and distributors of porn, there'd be a lot less need to worry about viewers.
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
You can use filters as you see fit. Once government starts using them to pick out certain traffic, you run into 4th amendment issues, If government forces them to use the filters they become government actors.
You create the same problem you are trying to "fix", and you don't even see it.
The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
You can use filters as you see fit. Once government starts using them to pick out certain traffic, you run into 4th amendment issues, If government forces them to use the filters they become government actors.
You create the same problem you are trying to "fix", and you don't even see it.
But you are the one who said your 4th amendment rights go out the window when you submit your computer to Best Buy! You are the one who said you have no right to commit a crime! Child porn is a crime. Transmitting it is a crime. If I MAIL child porn via the mail, it is a crime. If the mere possession of it is a crime, even if someone else puts it on my computer, then the transmission of it is as well. All you have to do is make carrying it via the web a crime, and you'd find out just how fast Google can make a filter to recognize and block kiddie porn and stop it. Facebook and Twitter routinely block many sites due to content, where are the efforts to remove existing kiddie porn off the web? Funny that you'd be against that. You are against everything else!
Using the backbone of the internet is the same as using phone lines from a legal perspective, and you have an inherent expectation of privacy. It's why they have to get warrants for phone taps.
Mailing child porn is a crime, i.e. distribution, but we don't arrest the mail carrier, because again they can't open said mail without a warrant.
They block content THEY decide to block, not because government told them to do so.
Using the backbone of the internet is the same as using phone lines from a legal perspective, and you have an inherent expectation of privacy. It's why they have to get warrants for phone taps.
Phones are live transmission of data. We have no expectation of privacy over the internet which is why our internet activity is tracked, and our email is tracked.
Mailing child porn is a crime, i.e. distribution, but we don't arrest the mail carrier, because again they can't open said mail without a warrant.
But the mail carrier doesn't know what's in the envelop. The IPs know what porn is, where it is and can detect when they send it. They can block the sites that have it.
They block content THEY decide to block, not because government told them to do so.
If child porn is a crime then the government can order it blocked.
Where do you get "no expectation of privacy?" The transmission of data via the internet backbone is no different from the live transmission of voice via phone.
All the sender has to do is encrypt the data stream and the IP will no longer know what is being sent.
The government would have to use the IP's as actors to scan for such things, and then you are back at 4th amendment issues as the IP's become government actors.
Where do you get "no expectation of privacy?" The transmission of data via the internet backbone is no different from the live transmission of voice via phone.
Then I guess you missed the entire Edward Snowden thing and Project Eschelon.
All the sender has to do is encrypt the data stream and the IP will no longer know what is being sent.
Then all the porn end user needs to do is encrypt his files in his computer so they cannot be viewed. Besides, these are JPEGS gathered freely from many sites openly for viewing! Of what use would they be by encrypting them , then no one could see them unless specifically sent to a paid end user. Makes no sense. If Google can recognize a face, then it has the ability to recognize a naked baby girl with a collar around her neck.
The government would have to use the IP's as actors to scan for such things, and then you are back at 4th amendment issues as the IP's become government actors.
The IPs are already government actors. All they would be doing is blocking material that is deemed illegal. IE, obeying the law.
Where do you get "no expectation of privacy?" The transmission of data via the internet backbone is no different from the live transmission of voice via phone.
Then I guess you missed the entire Edward Snowden thing and Project Eschelon.
All the sender has to do is encrypt the data stream and the IP will no longer know what is being sent.
Then all the porn end user needs to do is encrypt his files in his computer so they cannot be viewed. Besides, these are JPEGS gathered freely from many sites openly for viewing! Of what use would they be by encrypting them , then no one could see them unless specifically sent to a paid end user. Makes no sense. If Google can recognize a face, then it has the ability to recognize a naked baby girl with a collar around her neck.
The government would have to use the IP's as actors to scan for such things, and then you are back at 4th amendment issues as the IP's become government actors.
The IPs are already government actors. All they would be doing is blocking material that is deemed illegal. IE, obeying the law.
To do that is would have to scan every bit of data going through the pipes, and without a warrant all that would be inadmissible.
No, they are not investigatory government actors.
Where do you get "no expectation of privacy?" The transmission of data via the internet backbone is no different from the live transmission of voice via phone.
Then I guess you missed the entire Edward Snowden thing and Project Eschelon.
All the sender has to do is encrypt the data stream and the IP will no longer know what is being sent.
Then all the porn end user needs to do is encrypt his files in his computer so they cannot be viewed. Besides, these are JPEGS gathered freely from many sites openly for viewing! Of what use would they be by encrypting them , then no one could see them unless specifically sent to a paid end user. Makes no sense. If Google can recognize a face, then it has the ability to recognize a naked baby girl with a collar around her neck.
The government would have to use the IP's as actors to scan for such things, and then you are back at 4th amendment issues as the IP's become government actors.
The IPs are already government actors. All they would be doing is blocking material that is deemed illegal. IE, obeying the law.
To do that is would have to scan every bit of data going through the pipes, and without a warrant all that would be inadmissible.
No, they are not investigatory government actors.
I disagree, but then we disagree on everything and this thread has been pointless since about 140 posts ago.
You are a liberal, what a surprise. I didn't know liberals fought to allow child porn but you are fighting to allow child porn so it must be true!The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
You are a liberal, what a surprise. I didn't know liberals fought to allow child porn but you are fighting to allow child porn so it must be true!The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
your posts clearly show that you lie about things and spread false information. If you aren't lying, my apologies, as that means you are extremely stupid. That you want to allow people to posses child porn is also abundantly clear.You are a liberal, what a surprise. I didn't know liberals fought to allow child porn but you are fighting to allow child porn so it must be true!The warrant got rejected because the judge was not given the entire story of how they found the initial picture in the first place.
The judge was lied to because the FBI knew it was illegal. And when he found out the truth the warrant was rejected.
Possession of something that was illegally made, in this case, is still illegal.
It all begins and ends with the web. Cut off that root and you kill the entire industry, then you have much less to go after. The "possessors" can no longer possess. The makers can no longer distribute. It all starts and ends with the web providers and their unwillingness to use the filters they have to catch and block the stuff in the first place.
So your solution is to shut down the internet?
Why do you keep circling back to the same nonsense? If I use Firefox, I have filters which can filter all the porn out. They know where the porn is! And it could be adapted to filter child porn. No one could defeat it if it was already done at the IP. The phone company is an entirely different matter. The only reason why we allow kid porn to continue is because liberal activists fight the blocking of it the same way the NRA fights all gun restrictions. The hypocrisy here is that if the law were SERIOUS about kid porn being illegal, then they would make ALL aspects of its handling illegal, including the carrying of it over the internet. This could be accomplished overnight if we simply slapped Google with a 1.1 billion dollar criminal lawsuit, but they won't because Google is in bed with the law.
You are a moron who has obviously never read any of my other posts. Go away, fool. I fight to obliterate stupidity and obviously your parents should be sued for having you.
[your posts clearly show that you lie about things and spread false information. If you aren't lying, my apologies, as that means you are extremely stupid. That you want to allow people to posses child porn is also abundantly clear.
