You really have to read the article. It mentioned that the guy accused had images in his cache - something that could have happened to any technically naive individual on this very website not so long ago (remember those getting images in PMs). I'm certainly not defending the accused individual in this case, but the judge was attempting to draw a distinction between stuff downloaded, etc and stuff that is in your cache, which may or may not be a person's fault (based on all sorts of crap out there - viruses, redirect links, hijacking one's computer, etc.)
That is correct! Anyone who has searched or viewed your basic porn has been redirected to some crazy sites. It's a tough distinction, but I agree with it. Certainly some sick bastards will exploit this, but it is a ruling which gives consideration to the realities of the net we have today.
Good point, Tsing. Interesting cases. Did you catch the recent article where a judge ruled that clicking the 'Like' button on a website is not protected free speech?