I don't think you're responding to the point. The point is that speech--methods of communication--are being restricted here, which hurts legitimate users and do

I don't think you're responding to the point. The point is that speech--methods of communication--are being restricted here, which hurts legitimate users and does not prevent anyone from performing these heinous acts. The whole point of speech protections is that you have to allow people to say things you don't want them to say in order to protect the things you do want to be said. Going after the speech here is a pandering waste of time that infringes on fundamental rights. The actual crimes here are what need to be chased after. And the parent's point is a strong one -- why would you discourage criminals from using an open communication medium?? If we can't stop these people when they communicate openly how on earth are we going to do so if we drive them underground? Enforcement, police resources, whatever you want to call it is the issue here. Pushing the communication out of sight and pretending something has been done about the problem is the complete opposite of a solution, it makes people feel like something has been done while making the problem less visible and no more solved.