[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We could argue the same thing about any perilous, but enjoyable activity: who would be disadvantaged if we banned mountain biking because of the mishaps inherent to the sport? The difference, of course, is that a sexual predator is a person who intends to do harm, while falling off of a bicycle is a simple accident. But we can still draw parallels between these two things with respect to the impacts on the victims—both can potentially inflict grevious injury, of various sorts. If it were truly a matter of protecting the victims, then it seems that we might go to any lengths to shield people from all the hazards of life. Realistically, though, I think that legislation like this is motivated by the desire to remove the possibility of people (and not merely victims) partaking in activities that are not universally recognized as constructive. It has far less to do with victims of sex crimes than it does with the embarassment of media proclaiming "Pre-Teen Internet Scandal", with a picture or video of an underdressed twelve-year-old doing something imprudent.

The difference being that if you hurt someone it would be yourself not an innocent.