Full thread.

alleged. Alleged pedophile.

Unless there is further proof outside the article, this is an extremely small amount of evidence. Clearly a laptop is being used to look at child porn, and the principal gave incorrect information about the laptop. However, there's nothing in this article in terms of evidence beyond that. The principal has been charged, but not yet convicted, so innocent until proven guilty. [ 63]

I'm wondering if the whole "child port" part is exaggerated. Maybe he was just browsing "fresh teens" or some other dumb shit where some 40 year old slut does a scene with pigtails, dolls, and kiddy backdrop.

As far as we know, the pornography habits of the principal were recorded out of context by a malware tool and that somebody, maybe not even a someone IT trained yet, interpreted from these reports that he was viewing child porn. [ 3]

It's funny how the only time reddit upvotes an "innocent until proven guilty" comment, or hell even posts one, is when it's about a pedophile. Wait, that's not funny. That's disgusting.

Are you a pedophile (and liable for legal prosecution) just looking at a picture of individuals actually engaging in pedophile activity in reality? Apparently so.

Can you be arrested if you watch a video of someone murdering someone else?

Why is it "yes" in the first case, but "no" in the second? [ 20]

Truly, this is what we should be concentrating on. That whole comment chain is a shitfest.

The same guy later:

But maybe even more interesting - even if reliable data showed that watching kiddie porn increased the likelihood of forcing oneself on a child by, say, 70%, would that be enough of a reason to arrest someone? If so, it would then seem to be OK to arrest someone for what they might do, rather than what they did do. Should someone be arrested for showing a 70% likelihood of committing an illegal act in spite of the fact that they, up to that point, have not actually done anything at all? And if that were the case, would we not be entering a strange world indeed - the Orwellian world of thought crime? [ 15]

Lhitlerly Orwellian thought crime for arresting people who look at child porn.

The current markets do not create material, but just collect material that exists and sales access to it. Also, perhaps the only reason these markets exists is because of how illegal the material is treated. [ 3]

I have that guy tagged as "thinks child porn is the same as music" because of a discussion 11 months ago where he was defending child pornography. The dude is a legitimate pedophile.

Modern society seems to think men that don't run away screaming at the sight of a child must be a pedophile. [ 4]

Ah, the ol' "Men can't be near children or the evil wimminz will think they're pedos!" jerk that is never proven and never happens. Maybe if you all STOPPED DEFENDING PEDOPHILES, people would stop thinking you're pedophiles?

I hate this site.