"I think that the tax serfs of AmeriKKKa should rise and throw off the chains of their oppression by blowing up their nearest federal office building. Here is how they should do it. Take 16 parts ammonium nitrate and one part fuel oil (that's diesel fuel if you like) mix them together..." Voila. I've just converted a discussion of explosives into protected political speech. I consider it highly unlikely that people will be doing much time for so-called explosive speech. The publisher of Paladin Press *is* being sued civilly in a case of a customer who read his "How to Kill" series a bit too closely and used some of the info contained therein. Civil suits mean little in our medium, however, because the cost of production is so low and there are so many judgment-proof practitioners of net communications. In Sterling's "Hacker Crackdown" (http://www.usfca.edu/crackdown/crack_1.html) he discusses how the seizure of 25 "outlaw boards" by the Secret Service was an electronic example of a Vice Raid bust in which the LE's are not really trying to shut everything down but just trying to "show the flag" and intimidate the rest of the scum. The reason that Vice Raids probably won't work too well in cyberspace is because we are harder to intimidate. There are lots of us, we are spread all over the world, and we can so easily disguise ourselves. Note the ineffectiveness of the recent German crackdown. In addition, we don't think of ourselves as scum. We have friends and a pseudo community, we're not hidden, and we have plenty of support in our own "counterculture." Note too that Lady Di Fi's proposal to ban explosive speech did not try and ban public discussion of same but merely the knowing transfer of such info in criminal conspiracy cases. It would not have reached public web sites or newsgroups. DCF "I think that the American people have the right to see things like this -- Start Marlboro Man Commercial" -- how to beat the Tobacco Ad ban.