>Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content. >And perhaps more import

>Right, so how many of them have you looked at to make that judgement? Enough to determine there was no intent to post legal content. >And perhaps more importantly, isn't it slightly problematic (or at least odd) when a large number of people are justifying the ban by calling this material illegal... and to be able to argue that they must, surely, have committed the crime of viewing child pornography online themselves? A large number of people are saying this material wasn't illegal. They must surely have viewed it themselves, as well. Where does that get us?