To momentarily flog a dead horse, banning content only makes it more desirable. Fortunately, the economic aspect doesn't seem to hold true for now; i.e., when real world objects are banned, they become more expensive to access (cf. the artificially inflated prices of heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc). Information, OTOH, so far does not seem subject to this cause-and-effect rule. Italics: So Far. The less regulated and more diverse the net becomes, the more the relative prices for commodities (disk space, CPU cycles, bandwidth) will accurately reflect their "true" value at any given moment. Anyway, my original point was just to remind everyone of what they should already know: namely, that people may not care about not doing something until they are told that they cannot, at which point they will move heaven and earth to Do the Deed. Statists (and a lot of child psychologists) call it "obstinate" or "defiant". ObAside: If you haven't yet, read the latest DSM (the holy writ of the so-called "mental health" profession). Ugly stuff. Who is allowed to define "normal"? Who profits from the creation of such definitions and labelling of individuals? -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Tell your friends 'n neighbors you read this on the evil pornographic Internet "Where one burns books, one will also burn people eventually." -Heinrich Heine People and books aren't for burning. No more Alexandrias, Auschwitzs or Wacos.