My focus is on the fundamental rights of a suspect, and here I am very, very dogmatic, and not prepared to tolerate violations because the alleged crime is so disgusting (or for any other reasons). I don't find Edathy's defence cynical: basically he is saying "come and prove a crime if you can". That is his right. Need I really point out that a suspect is under no obligation to prove his innocence, he IS innocent unless the the prosecution proves their case? Would that question be necessary if the alleged crime was something else than sexual abuse of children (which is REALLY not synonymous with paedophilia, by the way)?

The question if the law must be altered, and the possession and trade of photos of naked children be made illegal is an entirely different thing, and one I am not sure about. (And I mean "not sure about", not that I know I would reject it). This is not the right thread for that discussion though.