Chris B, your question/request for an explanation was from your 12:06PM post: "... I wait to be advised by some of our outspoken libertarians in this thread of the moral distinction between posession of such images and the hands-on sexual abuse of a child. I look forward to having that explained to me. "

My point, as I already stated above, was: "The potential for a crime is not the crime itself. It is still serious, and needs to be addressed - but not with the same severity as the crime itself".

Which part of the above is unclear? And you still haven't answered my query as to what prompted your request for an explanation - though your tetchy response leads to any one of three possibilities:

a) you were trying to score a point against/put down the "outspoken libertarians" (whoever they may be, your words), or
b) you are playing devil's advocate (fair enough), or
c) you are playing silly buggers

And before you ask me in the same bad-mannered and offensive way that you asked Tim (tetchy again): No - I don't view child pornography, I never have, I have no interest in it, neither would I make friends with anyone who did.