Discussion Journalists and Entrapment.

[Forever Sleep]

Maybe it's just paranoia with the whole Offcom and BBC business. I certainly don't want to stir up anymore paranoia. I get the sense that a lot of members are feeling it. Both with a lot of new members pleading for sources (which in itself is nothing new) and reports of welfare checks all over the place- especially for the DMC source (which I tend to believe are real.)

Still, does anyone else wonder if journalists and the like are trying to 'entrap' individual members into (arguably) assisting a suicide? Both to damage the site and even possibly go after individuals? I've seen lots of requests for sources (again- nothing new,) but even requests to purchase kits or equipment from people. Both against the rules of the forum and presumably, against the 'assisting a suicide' law.

It's not like I even know about sources or, am knowledgeable enough to advise myself but, I really don't blame members for being cautious now. I can see it must be awful for newer members who are genuine and being called out all over the place though.

I just wanted to say though- please bear in mind what members here are worrying about with regards to sharing sources. I really don't know what would be classed as 'assisting a suicide' but, that's a crime in many places and caries up to 14 years in prison. Maybe it seems like people are being obnoxiously obstructive but- they're probably just scared.

And to the journalists who may or may not be a part of this- I guess they're succeeding in worrying a group of already desperate and worried people. Not sure they'll achieve their goals either. People will very likely resort to more brutal methods like hanging or train. So- if they're next train commute is delayed due to a suicide, they'll know why at least.

Not to say I think lethal methods should be handed out like candy. I'm more for regulating suicide. However, I think entrapment is a dirty trick- if that's what they're up to. Of course, they may not be. It could just be paranoia getting to me too.

 

[Rynalia]

You're not alone thinking this.

Gut feeling screams sting operations everywhere. Quite honestly, I'd be more surprised if pro-life zealots weren't purposely being insufferable pricks to an already vulnerable population. Gotta kick them while they're down, right?

 

[deadbidaylight]

I tend to agree with you. I've seen a few posts on here as of late that have me looking twice and scratching my head.

I'd never assist in a suicide anyway, but I feel like there could definitely be a few entrapment type cases happening here. Maybe I'm paranoid too, but at least I'm not alone in the paranoia.

 

[Pale_Rider]

I agree 100%. Ive been here a short time, so I can testify its confusing for sure.

 

[hang in there]

Yesh, there's a lot of new posters I am not replying to. They are being suspiciously vague and pleading with subjects that are very legally touchy.

 

[Esc9434]

Well said OP!

I think this thread deserves a sticky.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Linda]

Maybe it's just paranoia with the whole Offcom and BBC business. I certainly don't want to stir up anymore paranoia. I get the sense that a lot of members are feeling it. Both with a lot of new members pleading for sources (which in itself is nothing new) and reports of welfare checks all over the place- especially for the DMC source (which I tend to believe are real.)

Still, does anyone else wonder if journalists and the like are trying to 'entrap' individual members into (arguably) assisting a suicide? Both to damage the site and even possibly go after individuals? I've seen lots of requests for sources (again- nothing new,) but even requests to purchase kits or equipment from people. Both against the rules of the forum and presumably, against the 'assisting a suicide' law.

It's not like I even know about sources or, am knowledgeable enough to advise myself but, I really don't blame members for being cautious now. I can see it must be awful for newer members who are genuine and being called out all over the place though.

I just wanted to say though- please bear in mind what members here are worrying about with regards to sharing sources. I really don't know what would be classed as 'assisting a suicide' but, that's a crime in many places and caries up to 14 years in prison. Maybe it seems like people are being obnoxiously obstructive but- they're probably just scared.

And to the journalists who may or may not be a part of this- I guess they're succeeding in worrying a group of already desperate and worried people. Not sure they'll achieve their goals either. People will very likely resort to more brutal methods like hanging or train. So- if they're next train commute is delayed due to a suicide, they'll know why at least.

Not to say I think lethal methods should be handed out like candy. I'm more for regulating suicide. However, I think entrapment is a dirty trick- if that's what they're up to. Of course, they may not be. It could just be paranoia getting to me too.

I'm sure they are trying to entrap people. Caution is DEFINITELY warranted. Both journalists and law enforcement commonly "set up" crimes, so they can cause trouble for anyone who falls into their trap.
I would STRONGLY advise members not to provide any kind of sensitive information to anyone who joined the site since the OFCOM business started, i.e. to anyone who joined on or after 8th April. (Even in normal circumstances, it would not be a good idea to privide sensitive information unless someone has been a member for a few months, and has made a reasonable number of posts that are clearly sensible.)

 

[leandra]

What difference does it make if journalists are here or not. Its not like that is something new to begin with. Also individuals here do help others here with their suicides which is a double edged sword we cannot deny that this result in the death of people who could easily be helped.

 

[Rynalia]

What difference does it make if journalists are here or not. Its not like that is something new to begin with. Also individuals here do help others here with their suicides which is a double edged sword we cannot deny that this result in the death of people who could easily be helped.

The difference is that it brings much more unwanted attention and affects public sentiment. Operating becomes far more difficult when you not only have law enforcement on your ass, but also plain Janes that have no right having a say over whether we should live or die by our own hands rallying up pro-lifers and creating avenues for legislation to be put into place which in turn makes finding peace even more difficult for us. Sure, it might not be something new, but the cogs tend to turn when people start banding together-- and lets be honest, we're not quite on the winning side.

 

[gothbird]

Entrapment isn't a far fetched fear. Journalists have done it before, especially to communities they see as vulnerable, scandalous, or disposable. Law enforcement has always inserted agents into "undesirable" groups to provoke, entrap, or gather evidence, whether it was civil rights movements, unions, activist groups, or now forums like this.
It's not new. It's just more desperate now, because the narrative around assisted death is shifting globally, and they're trying to slow that down.

You're also right that it creates real collateral damage. It forces people who are already isolated, desperate, and traumatised to live under suspicion — exactly when trust and harm reduction are most needed.
It pushes people toward more violent, traumatic exits when information about safer methods is withheld out of fear of legal reprisal. And it lets them wash their hands afterward, pretending they "protected" us, when all they protected was the illusion that suffering is better than dying.

No one here owes their life or their freedom to proving trust to strangers. No one should feel guilty for choosing to withhold certain information when the stakes are this high.

At the same time you're also right that it's painful for genuine newcomers who just want to find peace and are met with suspicion. It's awful, but it's not personal. It's what happens when a community is forced to live under siege conditions.

Sometimes even I feel nervous about what I share here. I know that giving information — even factual, public information about how death works, where substances come from, what the failure rates are — could be seen by the wrong people as "assistance." And the consequences for that aren't small. In some places, it's prison.
But I share anyway. Because I remember what it felt like to be seventeen, or twenty, or twenty-seven, sitting in the dark, terrified, sick, and alone, digging through forums and bad translations and fearmongering articles, desperate for real information. Just to know what my choices really were. To not feel like a lab rat walking blind into a wall of pain because people decided "not knowing" was more ethical than dying cleanly.

So yes — I share. Because someone deserves better than what I had.

But I won't lie to you: unless you genuinely don't care about the potential legal consequences, don't share specifics. Not in public.

And as for journalists — if they're really inserting themselves here thinking they're doing some grand service to humanity, they should ask themselves how many bloodstained train platforms they're willing to call a "victory" before they start to understand what they helped cause. Suck the farts out of my ass.

 

[leandra]

The difference is that it brings much more unwanted attention and affects public sentiment. Operating becomes far more difficult when you not only have law enforcement on your ass, but also plain Janes that have no right having a say over whether we should live or die by our own hands rallying up pro-lifers and creating avenues for legislation to be put into place which in turn makes finding peace even more difficult for us. Sure, it might not be something new, but the cogs tend to turn when people start banding together-- and lets be honest, we're not quite on the winning side.

You got a point but taking down sasu isnt an easy thing to do. I think even if it happens then another community will show up. Public sentiment will be always against us and also we cannot deny that our community is just all peachy, many people who could have been saved took their own lives with the use of info found on this site and plenty others will. If we wanna persist as a community there are certain hard conversations that need to be had

 

[wiggy]

Considering the huge variety of jurisdictions and the fact that there is a veil of anonimity surrounding the forum, I'm not terribly concerned about entrapment. There is also the obvious consideration that none of us really plan to be here in the long term. Regardless, I think there are very valid moral considerations as to how we should engage other members considering the subject matter. It's one thing to freely discuss a topic, quite another to encourage someone to take their own life, particularly if they're not of sound mind. Even if there were no legal barriers whatsoever, I'm not sure people be freely passing around links to SN and stuff like that.

 

[Forever Sleep]

What difference does it make if journalists are here or not. Its not like that is something new to begin with. Also individuals here do help others here with their suicides which is a double edged sword we cannot deny that this result in the death of people who could easily be helped.

Why are we here if we can 'easily be helped?' Do you suppose everyone here hasn't tried the help on offer?

I wouldn't mind journalists and law enforcement being here if they gave a fair representation of the site and considered the bigger issue of why people come here in the first place. They seem more keen on writing sensationalist pieces about death cults etc. because- that's what sells.

You got a point but taking down sasu isnt an easy thing to do. I think even if it happens then another community will show up. Public sentiment will be always against us and also we cannot deny that our community is just all peachy, many people who could have been saved took their own lives with the use of info found on this site and plenty others will. If we wanna persist as a community there are certain hard conversations that need to be had

I don't entirely disagree with you. I am actually in support of some gate keeping with regards to information. The 'how' that is done is tricky though.

Of course, the best scenario would be for assisted suicide to be legalised and regulated. Then- we wouldn't be the ones needing to make decisions on who sounds too young, who sounds too uncertain or unstable. Whether we even have the right to deny them. Whether they could be helped. Either us or, regular retailers of things like SN. Why leave it to us to assess who sounds suicidal, who sounds like they have mental capacity? Ironically- by denying us an official way out, knowing the demand is still very much there- by all age groups- it does force the whole thing underground.

As for sharing information here- so much is already available here. Asides from actual sources, I suspect most of us are only reciting something we have already read when it comes to method advice. Whether there should be restrictions on all of it is another matter. One I find it very hard to ponder on. What with privacy rights, freedom of information vs. danger to minors and possibly vulnerable people- it's a headache.

I do agree though- we need to consider all these things. Partly to demonstrate that we are thinking, rational and caring human beings and not just mindless members of a death cult!

 

[leandra]

I

Why are we here if we can 'easily be helped?' Do you suppose everyone here hasn't tried the help on offer?

I wouldn't mind journalists and law enforcement being here if they gave a fair representation of the site and considered the bigger issue of why people come here in the first place. They seem more keen on writing sensationalist pieces about death cults etc. because- that's what sells.


I don't entirely disagree with you. I am actually in support of some gate keeping with regards to information. The 'how' that is done is tricky though.

Of course, the best scenario would be for assisted suicide to be legalised and regulated. Then- we wouldn't be the ones needing to make decisions on who sounds too young, who sounds too uncertain or unstable. Whether we even have the right to deny them. Whether they could be helped. Either us or, regular retailers of things like SN. Why leave it to us to assess who sounds suicidal, who sounds like they have mental capacity? Ironically- by denying us an official way out, knowing the demand is still very much there- by all age groups- it does force the whole thing underground.

As for sharing information here- so much is already available here. Asides from actual sources, I suspect most of us are only reciting something we have already read when it comes to method advice. Whether there should be restrictions on all of it is another matter. One I find it very hard to ponder on. What with privacy rights, freedom of information vs. danger to minors and possibly vulnerable people- it's a headache.

I do agree though- we need to consider all these things. Partly to demonstrate that we are thinking, rational and caring human beings and not just mindless members of a death cult!

Indeed, u summed it up well