Hi! Two things:
First of all, as far as I know, Pirate Bay only removes child pornography after being requested so by the police (since it is illegal content) and does not perform their own checks of the content and judge is it's illegal or not. This distinction between material being illegal in itself and the one illegal to transfer without proper licence can be discussed of course. (There was a controversy about this earlier this year when the media claimed pirate bay published child pornography when it was the police that hadn't responded to them asking if it was illegal or not)
Second, the evidence in the torrent file was not made public by the user making the torrent file (which, since the coverage by the media now exists in several places other than the pirate bay) - it was and is a public act, so anyone can request to get a copy from the official institutions and it is up to the state to decide if some of the contents should not be made public.
One can argue that due to technology like the internet and bittorrent, these public acts become more easily available, but I don't think one can put the moral blame on the systems that make delivery of information faster. If anything promoted this material to be shared it was the headlines in the media.
I also don't quite agree with the way you compare services which lets user publish and publicists. Two cases can be the pirate bay allowing for publication of torrent files and blogspot allowing publication of blogposts. As any owner of a service (server) blogspot can choose to enforce any term of usage they want, they could ban and remove anything they don't like according to their own will (Im sure something like that is stated in the user agreement), but when we find something we dislike, let's say racist opinions, I think it's our ethical responsibility to hold the user posting them responsible for those views and commenting on them rather than accusing blogspot for publishing blogs with racist views. The same should go for the pirate bay.
Commenting by HaloScan
