"If they are not discussing the relevant topic at hand (i.e., young children), then this is behavior they could engage in from any location, obviating the 'need' for a community dedicated to pedophiles."

Have you not considered the possibility that a marginalised group may not wish to associate with the majority who want them to be imprisoned/censored merely because of what they think?

"On the other hand, if they are discussing the topic at hand, this sort of site should be closed."

You still haven't explained how the website is "harmful" and you haven't rebutted the positive effects which a sense of community has for a marginalised group and those who members of the marginalised group may interact with. Your moral beliefs do not negate the importance of the welfare of children and the ethical treatment of paedophiles.

"What the fuck? And you're surprised this crap is blacklisted?"

Maybe you could explain why you wish for a legal discussion forum for paedophiles to be censored. It is not a "how-to-molest-children" forum, it is not a place for exchanging illegal material, it is simply a place where people who are attracted to girls can discuss their feelings.

If someone is isolated from their community, has nowhere to turn for support and has nothing to lose, they are less likely to care about consequences (for themselves or others) than if they have a community. Your support of the censorship of places where paedophiles can form a community and receive emotional support is therefore rather thoughtless.

Most paedophiles do not commit offences against children, but oppression and hatred will only increase the probability of a person becoming dangerous.

"90% of the people in this country will tell you that www.annabelleigh.net crosses the line. I'm guessing over 50% will have a strong reaction against it and would prefer that Google make sure it doesn't come up in their search results."

It doesn't cross a legal line, so presumably you are referrring to a "moral" line. When you begin to moralise the internet, who can say where or when the resultant censorship will end?

"So, you can see it as Google repressing a very small portion of the population, or you can see it as Google's doing the rest of us a big favor."

Google is not doing a "big favor" for anyone. Censoring controversial material doesn't help readers; it simply makes them ignorant.

"If you take a photo of your 16-year-old self naked, who are the police supposed to arrest?"

In Ohio, a 15 year old was recently arrested for taking nude photographs of herself. They're also debating whether she should be forced to register as a sex offender if convicted.

"Tell us what sort of child pornography has been introduced in a successful felony prosecution in your home town, city or county."

The media, which is often the only source of information in individual cases, does not produce objective reports on child pornography cases. It reports that pictures showed children "as young as [the youngest age]" and that a person possessed "pictures showing [the most offensive type of image which he possesses]".

Some of your questions are extreme to the point of irrelevancy. There is no evidence of children ever being killed in order to produce pornography.

I cannot "provide a link to a local registry of sex offenders", as I am not American.

If you wish to research the nature of child pornography, try analysing academic journals rather than the mainstream/local media. The majority of academic research suggests that violence is rarely a feature of child pornography.

"How many of those convicted for possession or distribution of child pornography also show convictions for sexual assaults and misdemeanors? Other violent crimes?"

The only study which found a significant correlation between the use of child pornography and the commission of contact offences was withdrawn from publication or peer review, due to concerns over its applicability to the general population of child pornography offenders.

In short, claims that child pornography is mostly abusive and dangerous are not supported by the majority of academic sources investigating the nature of the material. The media's claims are motivated by potential newspaper sales (or adverts, in the case of broadcast media), the NCMEC and other organisations are motivated by a desire for repeat funding, while governments know that they can restrict the freedoms of the population (especially on the internet) by playing the child porn card.

I encourage you to read the list of quotes which I posted above, as they answer many of your questions.

"Child porn is one thing, and that is reprehensible"

It is disturbing that someone can make such a bold statement about something which they have never seen. How can anyone form a conclusive opinion about child pornography when their only source of information is the mainstream media and government-sponsored advocacy organisations such as the NCMEC?

I and three other people have compiled a list of quotes about the nature of child pornography, here.