Re: 1st Ammendment Tossed in Paladin Case

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

Tim May wrote:
> At 9:42 AM -0700 11/11/97, Eric Cordian wrote:
> >A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied
> >First Amendment protection to ``Hit Man: A Technical Manual for
> >Independent Contractors,'' saying publisher Paladin Press knew it
> >would be used by murderers.
> >
> >The book was sold to James Edward Perry, who was convicted of killing
> >Mildred Horn; her disabled 8-year-old son, Trevor; and the son's
> >nurse, Janice Saunders, in Silver Spring, Md., in 1993. The women were
> >shot between the eyes and the boy's respirator was unplugged.
 
> Having skimmed the "Hit Man" book, I can tell you it conveyed no unique
> information about how to shoot someone between the eyes and unplug a
> respirator.

If I recall correctly, it suggests the back of the neck/head as the 
Miss Murderer proper point of entry for small projectiles.

The instructions on how to build a silencer were very useful, but
neglected to mention that being smart enough to follow the instructions
didn't necessarily mean you were smart enough to use it properly.
A word of advice...if you forget to take the steel rod used to align
the silencer out of the barrel before you use it, it stings like a
bitch when you shoot.
 
> If this Paladin case is not overturned, it will mean the "death through
> lawsuits" of nearly all publishers of even slightly controversial material.
> Loompanics will go, Delta Press will go, etc. "Unintended Consequences"
> will be withdrawn by the publisher and the author will be sued. "The Turner
> Diaries" will become a contraband item.

I wonder if any kids reading the Bible have murdered big guys by using
a slingshot? Sounds like a case for censorship, to me.
 
> And why not sue other publishers and bookstores? Maybe a book on abortions
> helped a woman perform an illegal abortion. Maybe a book about fighting for
> liberty provided "abstract advocacy speech so explicit in its palpable
> entreaties to violent crime" (and so it is unprotected, according to the
> courts).

Perhaps the British could launch a class-action suit against the author
of the Star-Spangled Banner, and have it banned. They could use Jimi
Hendrix's Woodstock version to work the jury into an emotional frenzy
against it as an anthem for drug-addicted freaks.

> But in many ways, this is good news. The war is coming faster than I thought.

 <muffled explosions in the background>
 
> The judge in this case has committed a capital crime.

Better have our fearless leader, Jim Bell, convene a Melatonin People's
Court, immediately. (The rest of you guys signed and returned the 
'secret oath' that Jim sent last week, too, didn't you?) 

:: B o o t s