And it’s a charge that won’t drum up support for your arrestee, unlike plotting to kill a politician, which can draw in the wingnuts and the yesbutts.
The whole idea of child pornography as a blot on society was seriously skewed for me when I was distantly related (by marriage) to a postal inspector who charged parents for sending snapshots of their own kids in the bathtub (among other pictures of the children) to the children’s grandparents and other close relatives.
I am absolutely and forcefully against any genuine use of children for any sexual reason and of course any abuse or trafficking. But that story of ruining a good family’s reputation to advance a career made me sick.
Both my ex-wife and I had pictures of ourselves as babies in bathtubs which we displayed on screens at our wedding (along with other pics of us growing up and doing similar things in different places). I know very few individuals my age who do not have baby bathtub pictures of themselves (sudsy Santa Clause beards were often featured in the ones from my family).
While this has nothing to do with the main topic, I just want to point out that when I read someone is charged with child pornography I immediately wonder if it is true or some trumped up bullshit to hold them while they investigate further.
I am not taking a stand on what went on in this case – and the guy does seem to need some serious help. But just because I hear of a child porn charge, well that no longer leads me where it used to lead me.
Probably not pics of the grandkids bathing:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/24/us/north-carolina-man-porn-charges-researched-joe-biden/index.html
After executing a search warrant on Treisman’s cell phone and other electronic devices found in the van, the FBI discovered thousands of child pornography images and videos, according to the court order.
People who take pictures of their kids in the bathtub, having their diapers changed, etc. usually don’t have thousands of them, either.
Do you have a cite for that actually happening? I’ve never seen an actual child porn indictment or conviction that would correspond to happening to incidentally bump into child porn (which is also a lot harder to do now than back in the 90s). The cases I’ve seen always involve someone actively collecting and cataloging pictures or exchanging them - even the bogus ‘kid in a bathtub’ pictures Temporary_Name is talking about don’t fit that description. I’m asking this because the first defense of anyone who’s a registered RSO for child porn is always that they just stumbled across some somewhere and got convicted of that, but a simple look at the charge or at the news story on their arrest ends up showing that they had either a very large number of pictures or were actively attempting to trade child porn specifically.
Yeah, I’ve mostly heard of that only as urban rumors–sometimes exploited by malware by saying they downloaded some bad images to your computer and saying you’d better pay up or they’ll call the FBI.
That said, they might be getting it mixed up with a dumb thing I have run into: people getting charged under child porn laws for underaged sexting. Here is an ACLU article on one such instance:
I wouldn’t know if it’s harder to bump into now than it was in the 90’s 
The question was asked about ‘wingnuts’ who plot to kill, not people caught in a child porn sting. I don’t know if wingnuts actually are more likely to be charged with child porn offenses: I merely observe that being a wingnut caught in crime opens you up to charges that you would not have otherwise faced.
I base this on second-hand experience: back when I knew criminals, they and their friends were frequently getting busted for some other crime they’d committed (or sometimes …not exactly a crime that they, personally, had actually committed), just because they had come to the attention of the police, and, well, there was stuff in the car… (or whatever)
actually, I do know of a porn indictment that was based on incidentally bumping into illegal porn, but it was a long time ago, did not get any press coverage, and I have no idea how common it is now. Forensic examination of computers isn’t that common either.
It is massively harder. Child porn actually gets sites shut down now, while in the 90s it would often be mixed into ads on porn sites or mixed in with various other downloads. (Some people were doing it for distribution, but some of it was clearly people trolling to trick people into seeing ‘eye bleach’ pics). And if you happen to find some, you can report it and action will get taken by or against the site very rapidly.
My question was directly asked about the claim “It’s possible to get a child porn charge because your computer shows that you have once visited a site which showed you something (mixed in with everything else) that might be a representation of a child.” I asked for evidence of someone getting a child porn charge for once visiting a site that showed something that might be a child mixed in with everything else, and there was none provided.
There doesn’t appear to be any actual evidence that this happens, just anecdotal ‘long time ago’ or ‘I know a guy’ incidents that aren’t actual cases, so I don’t believe the idea that they just happened to find some vague remnant of child porn that he might not have even directly seen and charged him with that.
You’re right: I only said it was possible (based on my knowledge of computer forensics), and would be attempted (based on my personal knowledge of policing) I did not say that it had happened to a wingnut caught in a murder attempt, and I have no citation that (as alleged by the OP) it is common for wingnuts to be charged with child porn crimes. And as I stated above, I have no knowledge about how common stuff like Bill Henson’s work is on the internet. (It’s ok, that collection is safe for work).
And of course, your observations about people who are not wingnuts caught for terrorism offences are irrelevant to the question under discussion.
And no, I am not going to give you a citation for the one case I do personally know where a person was charged based on material found on his computer. At that time, there was no relevant strict liability rule in place, and since he wasn’t a person viewing or collecting or distributing child porn, he got off with only a couple of months of his life lost. There wasn’t any press coverage, and he doesn’t deserve any internet coverage and it was a long time ago