> "The CIA will dump kiddie porn on your computer if you cross them" is basically "the ATF will shoot your dog if you cross them" trope but for a different group of people.
Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done.
"Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep).
However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life.
> That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
Except that we know, via Snowden, all manner of things that the TLAs can do and have done.
"Child Porn" charges should ALWAYS be acknowledged with great skepticism given just how much damage even the accusation will do--especially if the investigation is focused on just one person (ie. not part of a broader sting or sweep).
However, in this instance, the evidence looks pretty damning. I still don't like them reporting on it, though. The man deserves the opportunity to prove his innocence in court and reporting the accusations denies him that--even if he is found innocent (which admittedly looks unlikely), the reporting will destroy his life.
> That said if this were anybody that wasn't part of the media "club" the media would not have extended them the benefit of the doubt and would have ran with the accusation in the title. That's the part that really bothers me. Screw them and their double standard.
That is fair and hard to disagree with.