Refusing to defend what one regards as an odious law is not the same as consuming the material yourself. I am also against such laws, yet I do not consume the content myself.
Please do not misrepresent or mischaracterise people in order to dismiss their point, it is used to silence debate (such as by calling people 'perverts' because the watch porn to discredit them). If you have an argument, post it - but please do not silence debate. I'm sorry if it wasn't your intention to do this, but it's a recurring theme to call people certain words or names in order to silence them nowadays.
Probably you are talking about HN comments, not the source comments.
I am presenting unpopular opinion here (score for my comment [0] goes wildly from -4 to +4) and you probably believe I am doing it because I am consumer. What actually make me questioning current state of laws is this simple experiment: can you run an FTP site (or Syncthing folder, or automated seedbox) at home where everyone on the Internet is free to upload and download anything and leave it unattended? What kind of laws prevent you from doing it?
The only laws are pretty much the copyright laws and CP distribution laws. As for copyright you at least have an option to setup DMCA abuse address, but you still have to actually process requests. As for CP laws things are worse: you will get your house raided without a warning.
These things damage net neutrality and make content distribution the privilege of companies which manage to make responsibility non-personal and keep the damage taken from data center raids under control.
There are enough people questioning copyright and at least we begin to understand that copyright is not some sort of "natural law", but a protectionist policy. Discussions on CP are pretty much taboo in our society. People mess up terms (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13567776) and believe witch-hunt is justified (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13568255). My point is that ban on CP distribution is, like copyright, is not the result of distribution being a crime by itself (even in current state it is a "victimless crime"). It should be made clear that it is only justified as long as it harms producers (https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=13567612). If it does not, then the law should be abolished, similarly to how we had to abolish marijuana possession and distribution laws.
Please do not misrepresent or mischaracterise people in order to dismiss their point, it is used to silence debate (such as by calling people 'perverts' because the watch porn to discredit them). If you have an argument, post it - but please do not silence debate. I'm sorry if it wasn't your intention to do this, but it's a recurring theme to call people certain words or names in order to silence them nowadays.