Matt Blaze did some research on this, and it seems to turn out that when you put an argument like this in front of a judge or jury, ultimately you have to back it up with evidence that it actually happened; it's not enough to say that the potential existed. Which makes sense, because the potential exists for a lot of stuff, including stuff we don't often talk about.

I think this post by signal is not much beyond exceedingly well-crafted nerd sniping [edited for claity]