Repost of a reply I posted in OT about the same thing. Source of quote is http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-896910.html which was referenced by that thread: To me it has nothing to do with "defending pedophile behavior". Pedophiles hurt REAL children and deserve eternal punishment for doing it. This is the attitude that truly bothers me (Ashcroft in that article): "In a world in which virtual images are increasingly indistinguishable from reality, prosecutors are now forced to prove that sexually explicit images involving children were, in fact, produced through the abuse of children, an extremely difficult task in today's worldwide Internet child pornography market." Gee, its too hard for us to find actual crimes and criminals, so we want to be able to prosecute anything that might be a crime or anyone who might be a criminal and screw the proof. A digital rendering that looks like a child is not a child. An adult actor portraying a child is not a child. Ashcroft doesn't want to be bothered by those kinds of little technicalities. He simply wants free rein to go after anyone he wants without being bothered by "proof" or "fact" (his words, not mine). That is wrong, and I oppose any effort to make suspicion that a crime may have taken place sufficent grounds for punishment. If even the lowest form of scum is not "innocent until PROVEN guilty", none of us have any freedom.