NBC's 'To Catch a Predator' is sued for $105 mil. over man who killed himself as police arrived

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
So what buisness did MSNBC have going to the guys home?
They decided to take the show to him......
we call that harrassment and a few other things...

As long as he did not show up what crime did he commit??

oh.,...I get it a thought crime...rofl....

<So having a graphic sexual conversation with a 13 year old, soliciting them for sex and sending naked pictures of yourself to them is a thought crime? I wouldn't think it was a 'thought' crime if it were my kid.[/q]

You're right, I would have hunted the bastard down myself, and probably provoked him into an opportunity where I could end his life myself, if it were my own kid.

Which is why we have this weird thing called the justice system. The funny thing about the justice system is how it protects the people you hate and the people you love equally.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: Cogman
So, what did the police do wrong? They knocked on his door and he shot himself. Had they arrested the man, I don't think it would have been right if he was found guilty. But this man became his own judge and jury when he put the gun to his head. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the actions that the police have taken here (provided that they had a warrant for the mans arrest).

"He committed no crime, and got treated like a criminal"

Actually, He didn't get treated like one, he got treated like a suspect, if that. Remember that the police didn't even speak to the guy (other then pretending to be children). Again, He killed himself (a crime), not the other way around. Would I have this guy die, no I don't think it is right for him to kill himself. But I don't think it is right that anyone should commit suicide.

Ultimately, This law suit is because this guys sister wants revenge for her brothers death. The sad truth is it was her brother who she should be blaming.

What gave NBC the right to invade his property after he didn't show up to the sting op? Also, his sister is accusing local police all over the country of taking bribes and looking the other way while NBC runs this game on people.

That being said, I will not cry for another pedophile dead. If he had not killed himself, and was convicted and sentenced to prison...chances are he'd be dead anyways.

Y'know what? Quote my last post and state your opinion based on that. He was a predator and he got caught. Fuck him. Look at my logic and defend that pervert. Go for it and see if you can sleep after.

So when did NBC become the police? I did NOT defend what he did, or what he could've done aside from this situation. If NBC is going to do this type of shit then the Police need to run the show so they can prosecute these criminals. Do you even read what other people post?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: Cogman
So, what did the police do wrong? They knocked on his door and he shot himself. Had they arrested the man, I don't think it would have been right if he was found guilty. But this man became his own judge and jury when he put the gun to his head. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the actions that the police have taken here (provided that they had a warrant for the mans arrest).

"He committed no crime, and got treated like a criminal"

Actually, He didn't get treated like one, he got treated like a suspect, if that. Remember that the police didn't even speak to the guy (other then pretending to be children). Again, He killed himself (a crime), not the other way around. Would I have this guy die, no I don't think it is right for him to kill himself. But I don't think it is right that anyone should commit suicide.

Ultimately, This law suit is because this guys sister wants revenge for her brothers death. The sad truth is it was her brother who she should be blaming.

What gave NBC the right to invade his property after he didn't show up to the sting op? Also, his sister is accusing local police all over the country of taking bribes and looking the other way while NBC runs this game on people.

That being said, I will not cry for another pedophile dead. If he had not killed himself, and was convicted and sentenced to prison...chances are he'd be dead anyways.

Y'know what? Quote my last post and state your opinion based on that. He was a predator and he got caught. Fuck him. Look at my logic and defend that pervert. Go for it and see if you can sleep after.

So when did NBC become the police? I did NOT defend what he did, or what he could've done aside from this situation. If NBC is going to do this type of shit then the Police need to run the show so they can prosecute these criminals. Do you even read what other people post?

I thought the police DID run the show. They just had their cameras there. I mean if a cameraman was inside the door before an officer, then that puts a whole different light on the situation.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: Cogman
So, what did the police do wrong? They knocked on his door and he shot himself. Had they arrested the man, I don't think it would have been right if he was found guilty. But this man became his own judge and jury when he put the gun to his head. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the actions that the police have taken here (provided that they had a warrant for the mans arrest).

"He committed no crime, and got treated like a criminal"

Actually, He didn't get treated like one, he got treated like a suspect, if that. Remember that the police didn't even speak to the guy (other then pretending to be children). Again, He killed himself (a crime), not the other way around. Would I have this guy die, no I don't think it is right for him to kill himself. But I don't think it is right that anyone should commit suicide.

Ultimately, This law suit is because this guys sister wants revenge for her brothers death. The sad truth is it was her brother who she should be blaming.

What gave NBC the right to invade his property after he didn't show up to the sting op? Also, his sister is accusing local police all over the country of taking bribes and looking the other way while NBC runs this game on people.

That being said, I will not cry for another pedophile dead. If he had not killed himself, and was convicted and sentenced to prison...chances are he'd be dead anyways.

Y'know what? Quote my last post and state your opinion based on that. He was a predator and he got caught. Fuck him. Look at my logic and defend that pervert. Go for it and see if you can sleep after.

So when did NBC become the police? I did NOT defend what he did, or what he could've done aside from this situation. If NBC is going to do this type of shit then the Police need to run the show so they can prosecute these criminals. Do you even read what other people post?

I thought the police DID run the show. They just had their cameras there. I mean if a cameraman was inside the door before an officer, then that puts a whole different light on the situation.

If the Police did run the show, do you think this would've happened? I watched an episode once and didn't see any police at all.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Raduque
The biggest god damned crime, is the ignorance displayed by EVERYBODY involved. Dateline NBC, Perverted Justice, Chris Hansen, cops, media, and 99% of you in this thread.

Being attracted to post-pubescent children IS NOT PEDOPHILIA.

Idiots.



And, for the record, I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve something bad. I'm saying you are all ignorant.

exactly!!

You're both idiots.

This guy had an explicit, sexual conversation with a kid. His sole intent was to have sex with that kid. He violated many laws.

Regardless of your personal definition of pedophilia, the legal definition is explicit. It contains no ambiguity. I have displayed no ignorance in regards to this matter. Look at my half dozen posts here.

This man committed a crime. Several crimes in fact. The fact that you want to defend him is sad and pathetic. When you grow up you'll have a very different take on this issue.

Until then... Think about what he did before he killed himself. He wanted to have sex with a child. And yes, a 13 year old is a child. I'm 35. I have no problem making this distinction. I don't care what your view is... a 13 year old is a child. A CHILD. He worked a chat room to find a kid. Once he found a kid he zeroed in. He engaged in graphic sexual dialog with that kid. He learned the kid's home address. He arranged to have sex with the kid at that address.

Explain to me how this isn't a crime. Explain to me how this is only a 'thought crime.' Explain to me how you can be so eager to dismiss his actions. Explain to me how it's ok to talk so graphically about sex to a kid. Explain to me why it's ok to e-mail a pic of your penis to a kid. Tell me why this guy is a victim. Defend him. I dare you. And if you do you're a piece of shit. Bring it.

Bring it? Please. Now I wanna defend him just because you dared me to. So I will.

Imagine if he actually went through with the crime he was planning and had sex with the adult who was pretending to be 13. Would he still be guilty?

On one hand he's still guilty of soliciting sex from what he thought was a minor. On the other hand, there's no victim. Who is to say he wasn't having convos with other kids at the same time? Huh? If it was a prostitution sting and the guy had sex with the undercover police officer and paid her, they would be guilty of prostitution.

In the case of this pedo dude, if he actually went through with the crime he intended to commit... it wouldn't be a crime. Why? Because it's physically impossible to have underage sex with an adult. Not only did the crime not happen, but the crime COULDN'T have happened.

[/quote]

This is where you're wrong. There's no having sex with the person pretending to be a kid. That's part of the sting... that's part of defendig the kids. He thought he was going to have sex with a kid. Just like the other guy thought he was going to have sex with the cop. In this situation intent is everything. Are you really going to tell me that you'd be OK with a guy soliciting sex from your 13 YO daughter/son so long as he didnt go through with it? Really? It's all good?

And, if indeed you did charge him with a crime, you would be charging him for THINKING it was a minor while actually engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

Argue all you want about this guy being a scumbag, blahbitty, blah, blah. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. The whole idea of sting operations are a bit of a grey area, but no more so than in the case of catching child molesters. I, personally think the law as it stands, does more good than harm. But the ends don't justify the means.

Well for starters then... You're sick.


I cannot believe you are defending this guy. There's no victim THIS TIME. You guys seem to want to live in a fantasy world where this is their first time soliciting a child. WRONG!

And this idea that there's no victim is BS to.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I hope NBC loses big time. These sensationalistic witch hunts went way too far.

While I am firmly supportive of freedom of speech and press, I do believe that we need to return to holding the media accountable for its actions and their impact on society.

The funny thing is how it all came full circle. The media was initially given this ability to be unaccountable in response to anti-pornography efforts. And now anti-sex fearmongering is primetime sensationalism. Ah... the ironing!

A rare time we are in agreement.

The police for all intents and purposes extended police powers to a third party in both the NBC and CNN cases, similar to the FBI extending powers to the RIAA.

It is the makings of Minority Report, against the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I hope NBC loses big time. These sensationalistic witch hunts went way too far.

While I am firmly supportive of freedom of speech and press, I do believe that we need to return to holding the media accountable for its actions and their impact on society.

The funny thing is how it all came full circle. The media was initially given this ability to be unaccountable in response to anti-pornography efforts. And now anti-sex fearmongering is primetime sensationalism. Ah... the ironing!

A rare time we are in agreement.

The police for all intents and purposes extended police powers to a third party in both the NBC and CNN cases, similar to the FBI extending powers to the RIAA.

It is the makings of Minority Report, against the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

I expected so much more from you. :|

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I hope NBC loses big time. These sensationalistic witch hunts went way too far.

While I am firmly supportive of freedom of speech and press, I do believe that we need to return to holding the media accountable for its actions and their impact on society.

The funny thing is how it all came full circle. The media was initially given this ability to be unaccountable in response to anti-pornography efforts. And now anti-sex fearmongering is primetime sensationalism. Ah... the ironing!

A rare time we are in agreement.

The police for all intents and purposes extended police powers to a third party in both the NBC and CNN cases, similar to the FBI extending powers to the RIAA.

It is the makings of Minority Report, against the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

I expected so much more from you. :|

NBC stepped over the bounds of reporting Journalism to making the news.

You support giving police powers to Corporations???

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Raduque
The biggest god damned crime, is the ignorance displayed by EVERYBODY involved. Dateline NBC, Perverted Justice, Chris Hansen, cops, media, and 99% of you in this thread.

Being attracted to post-pubescent children IS NOT PEDOPHILIA.

Idiots.



And, for the record, I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve something bad. I'm saying you are all ignorant.

exactly!!

You're both idiots.

This guy had an explicit, sexual conversation with a kid. His sole intent was to have sex with that kid. He violated many laws.

Regardless of your personal definition of pedophilia, the legal definition is explicit. It contains no ambiguity. I have displayed no ignorance in regards to this matter. Look at my half dozen posts here.

This man committed a crime. Several crimes in fact. The fact that you want to defend him is sad and pathetic. When you grow up you'll have a very different take on this issue.

Until then... Think about what he did before he killed himself. He wanted to have sex with a child. And yes, a 13 year old is a child. I'm 35. I have no problem making this distinction. I don't care what your view is... a 13 year old is a child. A CHILD. He worked a chat room to find a kid. Once he found a kid he zeroed in. He engaged in graphic sexual dialog with that kid. He learned the kid's home address. He arranged to have sex with the kid at that address.

Explain to me how this isn't a crime. Explain to me how this is only a 'thought crime.' Explain to me how you can be so eager to dismiss his actions. Explain to me how it's ok to talk so graphically about sex to a kid. Explain to me why it's ok to e-mail a pic of your penis to a kid. Tell me why this guy is a victim. Defend him. I dare you. And if you do you're a piece of shit. Bring it.

Bring it? Please. Now I wanna defend him just because you dared me to. So I will.

Imagine if he actually went through with the crime he was planning and had sex with the adult who was pretending to be 13. Would he still be guilty?

On one hand he's still guilty of soliciting sex from what he thought was a minor. On the other hand, there's no victim. Who is to say he wasn't having convos with other kids at the same time? Huh? If it was a prostitution sting and the guy had sex with the undercover police officer and paid her, they would be guilty of prostitution.

In the case of this pedo dude, if he actually went through with the crime he intended to commit... it wouldn't be a crime. Why? Because it's physically impossible to have underage sex with an adult. Not only did the crime not happen, but the crime COULDN'T have happened.

This is where you're wrong. There's no having sex with the person pretending to be a kid. That's part of the sting... that's part of defendig the kids. He thought he was going to have sex with a kid. Just like the other guy thought he was going to have sex with the cop. In this situation intent is everything. Are you really going to tell me that you'd be OK with a guy soliciting sex from your 13 YO daughter/son so long as he didnt go through with it? Really? It's all good?

And, if indeed you did charge him with a crime, you would be charging him for THINKING it was a minor while actually engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

Argue all you want about this guy being a scumbag, blahbitty, blah, blah. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. The whole idea of sting operations are a bit of a grey area, but no more so than in the case of catching child molesters. I, personally think the law as it stands, does more good than harm. But the ends don't justify the means.

Well for starters then... You're sick.


I cannot believe you are defending this guy. There's no victim THIS TIME. You guys seem to want to live in a fantasy world where this is their first time soliciting a child. WRONG!

And this idea that there's no victim is BS to.[/quote]

How so?? There really is no victim here......it was a freakin sting operation...the victim was the person who went to the house.

How can a knowing participant in the sting operation posing as or being the child be a victim?

A victim does not set themselves up to be the victii...hmmmm

 

[DangerAardvark]

.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Raduque
The biggest god damned crime, is the ignorance displayed by EVERYBODY involved. Dateline NBC, Perverted Justice, Chris Hansen, cops, media, and 99% of you in this thread.

Being attracted to post-pubescent children IS NOT PEDOPHILIA.

Idiots.



And, for the record, I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve something bad. I'm saying you are all ignorant.

exactly!!

You're both idiots.

This guy had an explicit, sexual conversation with a kid. His sole intent was to have sex with that kid. He violated many laws.

Regardless of your personal definition of pedophilia, the legal definition is explicit. It contains no ambiguity. I have displayed no ignorance in regards to this matter. Look at my half dozen posts here.

This man committed a crime. Several crimes in fact. The fact that you want to defend him is sad and pathetic. When you grow up you'll have a very different take on this issue.

Until then... Think about what he did before he killed himself. He wanted to have sex with a child. And yes, a 13 year old is a child. I'm 35. I have no problem making this distinction. I don't care what your view is... a 13 year old is a child. A CHILD. He worked a chat room to find a kid. Once he found a kid he zeroed in. He engaged in graphic sexual dialog with that kid. He learned the kid's home address. He arranged to have sex with the kid at that address.

Explain to me how this isn't a crime. Explain to me how this is only a 'thought crime.' Explain to me how you can be so eager to dismiss his actions. Explain to me how it's ok to talk so graphically about sex to a kid. Explain to me why it's ok to e-mail a pic of your penis to a kid. Tell me why this guy is a victim. Defend him. I dare you. And if you do you're a piece of shit. Bring it.

Bring it? Please. Now I wanna defend him just because you dared me to. So I will.

Imagine if he actually went through with the crime he was planning and had sex with the adult who was pretending to be 13. Would he still be guilty?

On one hand he's still guilty of soliciting sex from what he thought was a minor. On the other hand, there's no victim. Who is to say he wasn't having convos with other kids at the same time? Huh? If it was a prostitution sting and the guy had sex with the undercover police officer and paid her, they would be guilty of prostitution.

In the case of this pedo dude, if he actually went through with the crime he intended to commit... it wouldn't be a crime. Why? Because it's physically impossible to have underage sex with an adult. Not only did the crime not happen, but the crime COULDN'T have happened.

This is where you're wrong. There's no having sex with the person pretending to be a kid. That's part of the sting... that's part of defendig the kids. He thought he was going to have sex with a kid. Just like the other guy thought he was going to have sex with the cop. In this situation intent is everything. Are you really going to tell me that you'd be OK with a guy soliciting sex from your 13 YO daughter/son so long as he didnt go through with it? Really? It's all good?

And, if indeed you did charge him with a crime, you would be charging him for THINKING it was a minor while actually engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

Argue all you want about this guy being a scumbag, blahbitty, blah, blah. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. The whole idea of sting operations are a bit of a grey area, but no more so than in the case of catching child molesters. I, personally think the law as it stands, does more good than harm. But the ends don't justify the means.

Well for starters then... You're sick.


I cannot believe you are defending this guy. There's no victim THIS TIME. You guys seem to want to live in a fantasy world where this is their first time soliciting a child. WRONG!

And this idea that there's no victim is BS to.

[/quote]

Why do you keep bringing up how I would feel about my own daughter? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion. And frankly, YOU'RE sick for fixating on it. The whole point of the justice system is that YOU don't get to be on the jury for the trial of someone who's done you wrong. Justice requires IMPARTIALITY, something completely lacking from every post you've posted in this thread.

Just because it FEELS right, doesn't mean it IS right. You, of all the people in this thread, should identify with that. It feels right to call me sick doesn't it? Well harboring homicidal, vengeful hatred for someone who hurts children is natural, but it's also a little sick. We're all a little sick, buddy.

But you're right, intent is everything. I'm not arguing what the law is, I'm arguing whether it's fair or not. Sorry, but some of us can divest logic from emotion occasionally.

EDIT: Wait, I got confused at who I'm railing against. All involved parties please ignore the parts that aren't applicable to you.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Raduque
The biggest god damned crime, is the ignorance displayed by EVERYBODY involved. Dateline NBC, Perverted Justice, Chris Hansen, cops, media, and 99% of you in this thread.

Being attracted to post-pubescent children IS NOT PEDOPHILIA.

Idiots.



And, for the record, I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve something bad. I'm saying you are all ignorant.

exactly!!

You're both idiots.

This guy had an explicit, sexual conversation with a kid. His sole intent was to have sex with that kid. He violated many laws.

Regardless of your personal definition of pedophilia, the legal definition is explicit. It contains no ambiguity. I have displayed no ignorance in regards to this matter. Look at my half dozen posts here.

This man committed a crime. Several crimes in fact. The fact that you want to defend him is sad and pathetic. When you grow up you'll have a very different take on this issue.

Until then... Think about what he did before he killed himself. He wanted to have sex with a child. And yes, a 13 year old is a child. I'm 35. I have no problem making this distinction. I don't care what your view is... a 13 year old is a child. A CHILD. He worked a chat room to find a kid. Once he found a kid he zeroed in. He engaged in graphic sexual dialog with that kid. He learned the kid's home address. He arranged to have sex with the kid at that address.

Explain to me how this isn't a crime. Explain to me how this is only a 'thought crime.' Explain to me how you can be so eager to dismiss his actions. Explain to me how it's ok to talk so graphically about sex to a kid. Explain to me why it's ok to e-mail a pic of your penis to a kid. Tell me why this guy is a victim. Defend him. I dare you. And if you do you're a piece of shit. Bring it.

Bring it? Please. Now I wanna defend him just because you dared me to. So I will.

Imagine if he actually went through with the crime he was planning and had sex with the adult who was pretending to be 13. Would he still be guilty?

On one hand he's still guilty of soliciting sex from what he thought was a minor. On the other hand, there's no victim. Who is to say he wasn't having convos with other kids at the same time? Huh? If it was a prostitution sting and the guy had sex with the undercover police officer and paid her, they would be guilty of prostitution.

In the case of this pedo dude, if he actually went through with the crime he intended to commit... it wouldn't be a crime. Why? Because it's physically impossible to have underage sex with an adult. Not only did the crime not happen, but the crime COULDN'T have happened.

This is where you're wrong. There's no having sex with the person pretending to be a kid. That's part of the sting... that's part of defendig the kids. He thought he was going to have sex with a kid. Just like the other guy thought he was going to have sex with the cop. In this situation intent is everything. Are you really going to tell me that you'd be OK with a guy soliciting sex from your 13 YO daughter/son so long as he didnt go through with it? Really? It's all good?

And, if indeed you did charge him with a crime, you would be charging him for THINKING it was a minor while actually engaging in sexual activity with an adult.

Argue all you want about this guy being a scumbag, blahbitty, blah, blah. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again. The whole idea of sting operations are a bit of a grey area, but no more so than in the case of catching child molesters. I, personally think the law as it stands, does more good than harm. But the ends don't justify the means.

Well for starters then... You're sick.


I cannot believe you are defending this guy. There's no victim THIS TIME. You guys seem to want to live in a fantasy world where this is their first time soliciting a child. WRONG!

And this idea that there's no victim is BS to.

How so?? There really is no victim here......it was a freakin sting operation...the victim was the person who went to the house.

How can a knowing participant in the sting operation posing as or being the child be a victim?

A victim does not set themselves up to be the victii...hmmmm

[/quote]

Are you really that dense or are you making an extra effort to be that obtuse? How does this guy get a pass in your logic?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Why do you keep bringing up how I would feel about my own daughter? That's completely irrelevant to the discussion. And frankly, YOU'RE sick for fixating on it. The whole point of the justice system is that YOU don't get to be on the jury for the trial of someone who's done you wrong. Justice requires IMPARTIALITY, something completely lacking from every post you've posted in this thread.

Just because it FEELS right, doesn't mean it IS right. You, of all the people in this thread, should identify with that. It feels right to call me sick doesn't it? Well harboring homicidal, vengeful hatred for someone who hurts children is natural, but it's also a little sick. We're all a little sick, buddy.

But you're right, intent is everything. I'm not arguing what the law is, I'm arguing whether it's fair or not. Sorry, but some of us can divest logic from emotion occasionally.

EDIT: Wait, I got confused at who I'm railing against. All involved parties please ignore the parts that aren't applicable to you.

ALL of my posts have specifically realated to the law. Where others have tried to poo poo this man's actions, (including you) I have pointed out where he was is direct violation of the law.

It's very relevant. I'm not on a witch hunt. How would you feel if I were chatting up your daughter sexually and sending her pics of my penis? Oh wait... you hate that comparison and somehow I'm sick for reminding you of how powerless it feels to know that there are people out there who will try to do that. Forgive me like you seem to be so willing to forgive others of the same thing.

You're a responsible parent. I'm sure you'd like to tear my head off. Why give them a pass?

I'm not claiming to be the judge & jury here. I'm only giving my opinion. And I think my opinion is much the same as yours. That said... People like this don't deserve a pass. They don't deserve anything more than our criminal justice system. And if they cant hendle it... fuck em.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Good. I hope NBC loses big time. These sensationalistic witch hunts went way too far.

While I am firmly supportive of freedom of speech and press, I do believe that we need to return to holding the media accountable for its actions and their impact on society.

The funny thing is how it all came full circle. The media was initially given this ability to be unaccountable in response to anti-pornography efforts. And now anti-sex fearmongering is primetime sensationalism. Ah... the ironing!

A rare time we are in agreement.

The police for all intents and purposes extended police powers to a third party in both the NBC and CNN cases, similar to the FBI extending powers to the RIAA.

It is the makings of Minority Report, against the principle of due process and innocent until proven guilty.

I expected so much more from you. :|

NBC stepped over the bounds of reporting Journalism to making the news.

You support giving police powers to Corporations???

Hey, Dave, Why not for once, keep your drivel in P&N where it belongs? This is not a political discussion, but one where we believe a child should have a right to live, without intervention brought on by a pedophile.

Anyone else want to try and give pro-excuses to these sick fuckers, before I nuke this thread? It's apparent, some of you get off on this, in a sick kind of way. :|