[WL-law]

Your point 3 attempts to draw a moral equivalence between buying child porn and buying an SUV.

Not exactly -- I'm showing that that form of argument is weak at the margins. I leave open as to whether Townshend's actions are at the margins.

I did note, in a recent post, that the UK law involved was passed in 1978. That's long before the internet, which, as I've pointed out, really is a changed circumstance. But no politician is going to base his campaign on REPEALING child porn laws, is he, so the statute stays as writtern while the world changes around it. So you can expect some pretty bizarre outcomes, as I think this one is an example.

[WL-law]

By the way, while I was typing my last reply two unsolicited pop-ups jumped onto my screen. One was trying to sell me a "spy-camera" with a kinky implication. I closed the windows but whatever image appeared is on my hard-drive -- no, I don't think I'll re-format MY WHOLE HARD DRIVE just to get rid of it, and I won;t throw my computer away either. But -- what if that image was "child-porn", however it was defined in the UK statute? Apparently I would still 'possess' it on my hard drive and be a criminal. Who knew!

The absurdity reminds me of the line in Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross where, after on crime planner tells a fellow worker of his plan and the fellow worker declines to join in, the crime planner says "It's too late -- you listened. You're a part of it now. You'll be just as guilty as us..."

[Leto]

You are right in some cases this sort of "material could end up on your system 'uninvited', the best thing to do is alert the authorities.

BTW, Townsend's has been charged with possesion, distribution and production of child porn according to tv reports, far greater cupibility than possesion alone.

IMO voluntary possesion of material that by definition requires a crime to produce, makes the consumer an accesory to the crime.