RT> Because to you, teaching someone to build a bomb is teaching them to
 RT> be a terrorist.  To someone else, teaching them the bible would be
 RT> blasphemy.  When you start censoring, the only opinion that counts is
 RT> the one at the top of the food chain.  I don't think any of us wants
 RT> that.
It's really not a matter of when we start censoring, we've been there for a
very long time. As a matter of fact, we are really going in the opposite
direction of censorship. What is allowed and tolerated now is much more
liberal than what was allowed and tolerated 40 years ago. In terms of who
should be at the top of the food chain, that should be the people exercising
a democratic process. There are many interesting arguments involving
censorship, and you certainly raise one. There will always be smaller groups
of people who will not be happy with the vote of the majority. In the
argument you gave, the majority would be at the top of the food chain.
Let's say that 1% of the population wanted to make, possess, and distribute
kiddy porn. I guess they would be out of luck in this country if 99% of the
population voted it to be evil and illegal. The point in previous messages is
that some censorship is necessary. Just food for thought and discussion.
Tom Rightmer - Victims' Rights Advocate
... Simplified Crime Bill:  It's illegal to be a criminal.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------