Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible fo

Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible for someone to hack their computer, steal the images, and then distribute them -- even though no such distribution had taken place, and the only reason that images came to light is because one of their cellphones was confiscated for an unrelated reason at school. The child was 'protected' against having these images distributed by being convicted of a sex crime and having to register as a sex offender... Sometimes the lack of logic makes you want to rip your hair out. The judge with the dissenting opinion said everything that I wanted to say to the majority judges. I almost want to find him and take him out for a few beers just for performing his job reasonably. I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.