That doesn't make any sense at all. The fact that you can't access it doesn't mean you're not aiding in the distribution of it. If someone puts a ham sandwich in a locked box to which you do not have the key, and you bring the box to someone else who has the key, does that mean you didn't deliver the ham sandwich? I'm not saying I agree with the parent comment, but your reasoning is bizarre.
There are no physical objects involved here. It is entirely data. The only thing that can possibly happen is that you could gain knowledge of the data.
Someone could claim that there was some child porn embedded in the centre of a mountain but it would be just a claim. There would fundamentally be no way to prove that it was any particular thing unless someone admits to putting it there.
The people that invented the cryptography very much intended to create this philosophical situation. We can't pretend otherwise without breaking the cryptography.
That's really not the point. Whether or not you know what you are doing, you are the mechanism by which child porn is distributed. From a Bayesian perspective, you can just decide how "at fault" you are. If you're in a firing squad of 10 people and 1 guy has blanks, there's a 90% chance you're firing real bullets at the guy in front of you, even though you may have no real way of knowing whether you're actually firing blanks or bullets.
Either way, there's the objective fact of what you are doing (which is independent of your knowledge of the fact) and the degree of your complicity in the action. The parent is saying that they are uncomfortable with knowing that there is an x% chance they are aiding in the distribution of child pornography. There's an argument to be made that providing infrastructure is very different from active engagement, but it's bizarre to pretend that because you can't objectively know what each packet contains that you are therefore absolved of all knowledge of the situation.
No. You are not distributing the ham sandwich. You are distributing a locked box. You would only be aiding in the distribution of a ham sandwich if you had some reasonable suspicion the box contained a ham sandwich.
In the western legal canons, mens rea / intent either conditional or unconditional must be present for a criminal act.
I would not say I dedicate storage to freenet knowing that some of the content on my property is child porn in order for free speech to flourish. That could be construed as conditional intent.
I would say I dedicate storage to freenet in order to (insert reason here). I have no idea what is being stored in the box nor could I know.
