Guest:
He has admitted to accessing the site, and that is what has caused his name to be placed on a list of 'sex offenders' (Read the whole story linked at 7 May 2:17) but his only accepted fault was accessing that list.
He claims he was using it for research to be able to speak out against child pornography, and I, for one, believe him.
If merely accessing the site is sufficient to be considered a sex offender, presumably everyone who spoke against him should be on the same list, unless they are going on hearsay about the contents of the site.
By the same criterion, the BBFC (British Board of Film Censors) sit through films to decide whether they are suited to the public. The fact that they list films as unsuitable does not prevent those who seriously wish to view them from gaining access to them, nor does it prevent studies being made of them. It merely reduces 'public access' to the films.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

Nigel