Looking at what another lobbyist said.

This one is a bit novel. It tries to link "viewing actual child porn" with "abusing someone".

Their argument is that because some people at some "looking for help" place had a worry once they might abuse someone, that we have to assume that every case involves the worst possible people.

Leading from that, they use it to justify spying on everyone, and I'm not going to expound on this fully.

1) We don't typically violate everyone's rights because there are people out there who do bad things.

2) Might. Once. Could. Maybe. What on earth is this language? This makes me more uncertain of this idea, not less.

???

3) Perhaps, this place disproportionately represents people with such insecurities (whether reasonable or not)?

Rationally speaking, someone is really going out of their way to go to some place marketed at criminals?

Frankly, it's not very relevant because 1). Also, we're not talking about this group here, we're talking about distribution...? Where does this come into it?

???

This is very confusing.

If they're going for a "predators everywhere" argument.

The predators people are most afraid of tend to put a lot of time and resources into their abuses.

This isn't really people with a "worry" or a "might".