It looked to me like he was trying at first to say that calling for execution for possession of child porn was extreme BECAUSE such things can get on your computer and transferred via your wireless account without your permission, or knowledge for that matter.
This was the context of his first post on the subject, to wit - its much more difficult from a legal standpoint to measure intent just by possession, and penalties would need to reflect that.
I do not think he intended to defend possession of child porn with the intent to possess and view it. I’m pretty sure he meant that the law has to take into account the nature of the internet. Incidentally, if I understand the original ruling, the judge banned the perp from using the internet, and that would make sense to me: no way to claim in the future that possession was ‘inadvertent’.
I do think Rob’s later posts undermine and misrepresented where I thought he was going from his first post. And, of course, his drunk driving thought crime analogy was completely ill-suited to that point.
Good luck with the move, I know Rob considered the property in Kentucky to be a major move in aligning his lifestyle with his beliefs.
God Speed and good farming/living to you both!
The child porn in question was not accidentally downloaded on the pervert's computer. It was a huge stash of physical books and magazines. Those don't just happen when you open the wrong email. And the topic was not execution, but unsupervised child visitation.
Follow the chain of comments from the article, to post three bringing up how hard it is to go without internet, to post six submitting that no internet or child custody is the alternative to righteous execution, to RobRoy's response at post sixteen.
At the end of the day, fantasizing over sex with children and indulging in building a huge collection of pictures of that aught to result in not being allowed near children unless there is someone sane there to protect the child.
Ever.