I do think there's a difference in
intent. If Pete felt it made a difference, then it did
to him, and you have to give the idea some
consideration in any discussion of what he did.<<
Problem is, keets, that Pete didn't make this
distinction until *after* he got caught. If you read
ADB and the October 2002 diaries, Pete argues that
visiting the sites in any capacity, as viewer or
subscriber or even as "a vigilante" means that you are
validating their efforts. This encourages them and
drives the demand for new models/victims. He didn't
start drawing the distinctions you're relying on until
January 11th.
As for why Pete made this distinction, I'd guess he listed what he had done
in order to show that his investigations had been limited.If one is willing to give Pete's "distinction" the
benefit of consideration in regard to this one must
also give the opposite viewpoint (that there is really
no distinction) held by authorities, sex abuse
victims, the Phoenix House, and ADB, equal consideration.
I'll agree to that. However, I already said a while back that I think it's
a useless viewpoint. The number of hits these sites are getting from real
child porn fans is certainly enough to keep the porn flowing--recall that
Reedy was sponsoring more than 5000 sites and making millions of dollars a
MONTH. A few innocent researchers (or gawkers) aren't going to make that
much difference in demand, and certainly not enough to justify the kind of
censure this has drawn--it would be a drop in the bucket. The strategy of
attacking and humiliating individual users was based on a time when the
trade was a trickle and child porn was sold in back alleys. Stopping child
porn in the cyberage will require different and much more powerful
strategies.