[yendu bwam]

Threatening litigation, oops, that crosses the line for me!

Sure, I understand your point. But consider this. Let's say, in our democratic society, the vast majority believes that promoting the sexual abuse of little boys by men is morally abominable (i.e., wrong). So laws are passed preventing the promotion of such. (For instance, we have free speech limitations on promoting violence - and raping little boys, for most, is a form of violence.) If indeed there are laws that say such, or we decide to pass such lawas, and they meet constitutional muster, as decided by the Supreme Court, then I say, use every legal means to stop the promotion of sexual violence against little boys. Bravo to the people trying to do this.

[AzJP]

Physical violence violates the personal property of the victim.

That's a big difference from a thought. (written or othewise.)

Defend yourself and your children from physical violence.

Stay out of my head.

kj

[George from New England]

These folks need a pro-bible bump. Hence, BUMP! Keep on keeping on.

[general_re]

For instance, we have free speech limitations on promoting violence - and raping little boys, for most, is a form of violence.) If indeed there are laws that say such, or we decide to pass such lawas, and they meet constitutional muster, as decided by the Supreme Court, then I say, use every legal means to stop the promotion of sexual violence against little boys.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - mostly, laws like that don't stand up, according to SCOTUS. It's too bad the Paladin case didn't go all the way - we might have a bit clearer of an idea of what exactly the liabilities of authors and publishers are, legally - I don't think the plaintiffs in Paladin would have been successful, ultimately. But, it didn't, so at least for now, Brandenburg is the guiding case here...