Preventing harm by shotgunning toxic allegations and charges based on conjecture of intent somehow distilled from private consenting expressions between adults taken wildly out of context. In what world does that make sense? The allegations contained within this story remain incredible. I'm willing to believe that the private conversation was distasteful, maybe even potentially disturbing, but I can't imagine -any- private verbal interaction between consenting adults that isn't protected by both the US Constitution and the higher principles of the Enlightenment, full stop. I have no idea what was said over overheard here, but because of this principle, I don't need to. Unless there's some hard evidence or credible testimony that someone was literally caught red-handed molesting children, this story does not seem to make sense. Again, am I correct in understanding someone hypothesized actual intent to rape children? That's such a remarkable allegation it's almost incredible.