If you don't know the people involved, then on what basis do you conclude that it is a fetish activity? Some people get intensely excited by smashing of insects with shoes or feet. Yet when I'm out for a stroll and I accidentally step on a bug, I don't think, "OMG! I hope there aren't any children around!!!" Sure, it would be wrong if those fetishists produced videos for erotic purposes using child models or if they went around tricking children into stomping on bugs to covertly get their jollies. However, it is also wrong to project outside the niche of that fetish into a broader condemnation of bugs splattered either by accident or in entirely non-sexual acts of pest removal.
The same is true for what excites members here. A barrage of pies to the face can be erotic. There is a market for deliberately sexy media featuring models giving and receiving thorough pieings. It is wrong to incorporate children into those videos or to trick children into pie play as a covert method of generating media or experiences for their erotic appeal. However, it does not follow that every pie to the face is an erotic event.
I feel like facepalming every time someone inside the community gets stupid in the criticism of film and television sequences where pies are tossed in a context that is clearly not intended to be erotic (never mind the hyperaggressive nimrods who become outraged whenever a pieing fails to conform precisely with their personal expectations.) This fills me with a similar sentiment, because it is much more likely that this was an innocent bit of non-sexual fun than that it was the work of a like-minded fetishist eager to involve children in the action.
Regards,
messydom