Firstly, notifying the police that you are doing something doesn't make it okay. Secondly, doing something as research did not prove a good defence for Winona Ryder. Thirdly, if he is being asked to take part in a campaign, couldn't the asking organisation fulfil any research needs? Fourthly, I believe that there are enough free sites that you don't have to give your money to paedophiles. Fifthly, How much research do you need to do before you happily launch into condemning paedophiles? Did he think he might find the child porn on the web acceptable?
None of this makes him a paedophile (I'd also distinguish a bit in levels of evil between looking at child porn, creating it, and abusing children, by the way), necessarily, but it is an astoundingly crap and weak and stupid explanation for an intelligent man to offer. I'm a long-time big fan, by the way.
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 12 January 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)