>Now hold on, there's a HUGE difference here between what I said, and what
>this case was about.
>
>My contention is that if a "rational" adult views/listens/reads the material
>and believes that the author is advocating and encouraging the commision of
>crime, then the author should be held partly liable should that crime be
>commited. Lets look at some cases.
No.
If the reader buys into such exhortations and then goes on to commit acts which any mature adult knows, or should know, are illegal, that reader should be prosecuted for his actions.
Do you think the authors and publishers of chemical textbooks should be sent up the river if a defendant in a bombing case says he learned how to make bombs by reading "Applied Chemistry; A Study of Chemical Reactions"???
Do you think the individual members of the CDC should be prosecuted for what others have done with Back Orifice?
Examine your logic carefully, don't try to carry water with it until you do.
Reese