Wrong. Even if the police had in fact legitimately obtained the pictures, reckless endangerment and copyright infringement are serious offenses.
The reckless endangerment and copyright infringement have already occurred; please try to keep up with the class.
Really?
This is what your hate-boner for all things related to law enforcement has reduced you to?
Copyright infringement?
Please, do tell me how many years in prison you feel is an appropriate sentence for reposting a photograph on the internet without the photographer’s permission. Surely, the FBI will be so busy putting the entire population of 4chan behind bars, they’ll have no time to impersonate people on Facebook.
This is above my pay grade, so I’ll just have to take a leaf out of your book and robotically accept the decision handed down from our governing betters:
And is that what you agree is right?
“I’ll just have to take a leaf out of your book” means “For the moment, I’m doing it your way” (i.e. “right” and “wrong” do not enter into it; what the government says, goes). PTtKUWtC.
So you believe lawbreakers should be punished by my standard.
Interesting.
This is an example of reductio ad absurdum (demonstrating that the opposition position leads to an absurd result, and is therefore untenable, and/or – well, “and” in this case – that the opposition position is being applied in a hypocritically inconsistent manner, and is therefore is not to be taken seriously). PTtKUWtC.
So do you believe reposting a photo someone else took warrants prison time, or not?
Just because something’s legal doesn’t make it ethical. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. Those kids didn’t do anything wrong – why should their rights be violated, just because their mother committed a crime? (Especially since one of them isn’t even her kid!)
Because the gummit knows better than we.
:rolleyes:
That opens another can of worms – besides the civil and criminal offenses already noted, there’s the question of violating the code of professional ethics to which agents are (supposedly) bound.
Guys, I know you’re all smart. You’re not all a bunch of morons. So how is it that it seems like I’m the only one who’s put Smapti on ignore? He’s the dumbest little fascist troll I’ve ever seen. Remove him from your life and your life will be better.
(Plus, added bonus: I won’t see people quoting his posts.)
Surely you jest.
Personally, I dislike the idea of avoiding opinions I don’t agree with, although of course my sanity requires I do it to some extent. I’d rather learn the self-control to read things I disagree with without necessarily getting drawn in. That might take some time, though…
Besides, Smapti got my Sweet Seymour Skinner’s Baadasssss Song reference the other day.
I saw the so called “skimpy attire” pics. Hardly.:dubious: Shorts. No big deal as far as that goes. Nothing you wouldnt see at a mall. Not “racy” at all.
I do too. But after 12 years, the camel’s back finally broke and I had to figure out how to add people - well, a person - to my ignore list.
Better, maybe, but less amusing. I’ve developed a pattern for how to treat him (30% serious, 70% mock) that balances pontification and recreation.
Yep. I can tolerate wingnuts, trolls, conspiracy theorists, racist dickheads, gibbering loons, all-around fucktards— hell, even brazil84— but there comes a limit.
I don’t need to hear the same note over and over, and especially when it’s the brown note.
Back on topic: the idea that police can “lawfully seize” intellectual property strikes me as a novel one.
I agree. Obviously the ones who have not put him on ignore are not smart. If they were they would have put him on ignore, right BPC? Why they must be down right retarded morons to not put him on ignore like us smart people, right BPC? I just hope that some time in my lifetime we can wipe out all thought that does not conform to the designated acceptable thoughts as dictated by the Supreme Thought Court.