Trashing some offices is nowhere near overthrowing a government.
And pornographers did much, much worse. They trafficked underage women, misrepresented the contracts, routinely provided drugs to dull their actors' senses, and engaged in all kinds of underhanded or outright criminal conduct.
Those cases generally aren't entrapment. They get pretty close, but they don't include the final push. The other party is free to walk away without taking the bait. Granted, I've only read the details on a few cases but in the ones I read the FBI is clear to not cross the legal boundary.
Legally that's a fair argument, but there's an ethical hazard in law enforcement catalyzing a crime that may not otherwise occur, in order to bag a person who may not otherwise be a criminal.
Some of those setups discriminate based on ethnicity, such as those that target Islamic radicals and black nationalists. In my mind, this further deepens the ethical quandary.
Sometimes a solution in search of a problem is itself a problem.
"...the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) have approached multiple activists organizing for justice for George Floyd—who was killed by Minneapolis police officers—and have alternatively attempted to entrap them or pushed them to work as informants."
Given the state of the war on drugs and the war on human trafficking, do you think that there would be less drugs and human trafficking if people were not allowed to watch porn as you suggest?
I suspect that because criminals tend to ignore the law anyway, placing restrictions on pornography will completely fail to reduce any harm as bad people will continue to do those things regardless of whether PornHub exists or not
If pornography were not legal, then production would move underground and would probably involve even more harm.
Some might suggest that there needs to be heavier regulation and more protection for the women involved but banning porn would mean zero protection for the women and an unregulated trade
