As a civil libertarian, I am opposed to the use of internet filters in schools and libraries.

As to "why the press published this story" first, any investigation of any sort of wrongdoing by public officials and law enforcement, as the story claims is the case here, the press has a duty to cover. Second, it appears that Pete Townsend went to the press himself, not the other way around. You don't get to have it both ways.

I too have said that Pete Townsend deserves to be treated fairly. But he has already received some privleged treatment because of his status as a pop star--he gained access to the press to "tell his side of the story" before he was officially linked to this investigation, and before any charges have even been made. I doubt that courtesy would have been given to any old suspect. Finally, as I've said repeatedly, Pete Townsend is innocent until proven guilty. However, he has already sought out the media to tell them he paid to view child pornography. Is what he did a crime? I certainly don't know, as I don't know what the investigation suspects him of doing, and nor does anyone but those close to investigation, and because I am not familiar with the current laws in Britain regarding the viewing of child pornography online (the laws are changing pretty quickly from country to country right now.

Now then, none of what I have said above is indicative of a lynch mob mentality. I haven't seen anyone here say we just thrown Pete Townsend to the lions. So I maintain that there is a fairly hysterical group of overly sensitive guys here about the subject, Pete Townsend, or both. It is ridiculous, considering the nature of Mudcat, to assume that this news wouldn't have been posted here and disgusted. But for some odd reason there is a handful of guys looking to shout down what has been an informed, thoughtful discussion.

None of us here has any control over the risks Mr. Townsend chose to take with his reputation and his career when he: 1) paid to view child pornography online with his personal credit card, and 2) chose to tell the media about it. He also had a choice to remain silent about this, until such time as he was named officially or not. If he is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing, why move pre-emptively, as some have suggested he did, and go public with this admission, when there is a very good chance he would never be named publicly?   There are things to be skeptical and cynical about here. Because one is skeptical and cynical about this story doesn't mean that a lynch mob mentality has taken root, or that people suggest civil rights be thrown out the window in order to better catch pedophiles.

Very little internet traffic is actually involved in child pornography and pedophilia, as some others have mentioned. However, the crimes involved with this activity continue to expand, and are now believed to involve the traffic of children in prostitution rings around the globe, illegal drug trade, assault, battery, slavery, racketeering, and all sorts of pretty awful stuff. It might not be a huge problem on the internet, but it certainly diminishes the seriousness of the actual crimes and victimisation of children involved to rise up and say in response to something like this "but what about us Joe Average Good Guy Porn consumers? what about OUR civil rights?"

Excuse me, but we aren't talking about Joe Average guys when we are talking about child pornography.