I think this are the kind of comments that turn people away from the freedom argument. If Eric Eoin Marques is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the operator

I think this are the kind of comments that turn people away from the freedom argument. If Eric Eoin Marques is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the operator of the freedom hosting and that he knew about the child porn content, he should be responsible for the content. Look at this argument in real world terms. If you are an owner and operator of a motel, and you rent a room to someone who then goes on to rape and kill a girl in that room, you are not responsible for those actions. Even if you made no effort to check the identity of the renter, and accepted cash, you are still innocent, at least morally (legally, depends on the state). However, if you happen to pass by the window of that room, see the occupant killing a girl in that room, you have the moral and legal duty to call the cops. I would never argue that the tor network, the node operators, the exit node operators, or the internet companies used to run the tor traffic would ever in any way be responsible for the child porn. Likewise, the camera manufacturers, and the manufacturers of all the hardware used to store and distribute said child porn would never be liable for that content. But, surely, the guy who rented the infrastructure to the child porn ring operators would be liable, if it can be proven that he knew for a fact that specific clients of his service used it for child porn. Now, the reason I say specific clients is because it's not enough to argue that he knew or should have known that some of his clients used the service for child porn. AT&T knows for a fact that some of their clients use the internet connection AT&T provides for child porn, but no one would argue that AT&T is guilty. But specific knowledge equals guilt in my mind.