I fail to see the First Amendment basis differences between rulings supporting the ban on child pornography and rulings upholding the dessemination of bomb making. In the case of child porn the laws maintain that the mere presence of such materials can serve as a catalyst to pervs who might use the materials to self-stimulate into a frezy leading to a rape or entice young'ins to voluntarily engage in proscribed activities. Healthy functioning adults, however, should be able to safely view such materials, and if they have an academic (though not necessarily affilaited with an institution for higher education) interest use them to understand the motivations and psychology of the pervs. In the case of bomb or weapons of mass destruction information, pyrotechnics or terrorists might use them to build devices to kill or injure many citizens (e.g., McVeigh), yet these materials are consititutionally protected. This is, to my mind, an obvious double standard with no rational explanation other than interpretation of the consitution to match prevailing public sentement. I suggest taht jurists who cannot rationally an dispassionately rule on such matters be immediately removed from office. --Steve