This argument, one that is seen quite often, is quite possibly the worst in the subject. Making assumptions and straw man arguments to support your position is not something to build legislation off of. Immediately assuming that someone who is against thought-crime like laws is siding with racist, violent, hate-crime supporting individuals is so absurd that you have to have to preform some serious mental gymnastics or doublethink just to make it seem reasonable.

Arguments like these are very comparable to those who support the erosion of privacy online and at home. They don't want people or the government to snoop around in their data, so that must mean that they're pedos hiding child porn in their hard-drives, right?

This is a prime example of a lack of critical thought.