Ah, todays explosive topic is Freedom of Speech, is it?
First of all, Gt, I was not 'offended' by your sig but simply pointing out that the principle you advocated could be turned against yourself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a legal principle and thus has to be applied equally to all. If advocating the death of many, even in jest, is not allowed, then advocating the death of a few, even in jest, is not allowed either. Else, we are placing the judge(s) or jury into the position of using sorites to resolve a case. If 20 people is not enough to violate the 'limit' on freedom of speech, is 25? If not 25, then 30? Etc... It's the old puzzle of where 'quantity' and 'quality' change hands. Because the act/event advocated in both your sig and that 'awful' website are the same. It's just a difference of scale.
And that's why the principle of Freedom of Speech has caused so much controversy. In order to preserve all reasonable speech from unreasonable application of the law we all have to put up with things we don't like. Anything that is judged 'out of the bounds of decency' will be twisted around to apply to something else. It's one of those 'cynical maxims' -- Any available power
will be used by goverment, for whatever purpose it can be used for not just the 'original intent'.
This is what concerns people with the new 'anti-terrorism' laws here in the US. Anything that an FBI agent gets offended at could be defined as terrorism now, anyONE that some FBI agent wants to investigate could be defined as a terrorist and have his/her rights stripped away for nothing more than being 'suspicious looking' on some vague personal criteria. Speaking out against the 'War on Terrorism' is definitely offensive to many people here right now. While it probably gets you added to The List of people to be watched and investigated, it doesn't get you arrested automatically -- yet. If it were possible to legally define 'offensive speech' then it probably would. I mean, anyone who thinks we shouldn't go and blow up the terrorists is obviously saying that we should just put up with the thousands of deaths inflicted by them. That's just
obscene! 
The fact that dropping bombs is rather messy and inexact, killing more
civilians than terrorists, doesn't seem to matter to these same people who are terribly offended at 'terrorism'.
And, btw, we've got a political advocacy group for sex with children here in the US. It's called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). One of the priests accused in the current scandal has been a
member for decades. I'll admit that it's pretty sick, and obvious to me that anyone who could advocate making sex with children 'normal' was abused him/her self, but the same logic that would suppress talking about this can be used to suppress almost anything else. You don't think we should put pot smokers in prison for 20 years to life? You're a degenerate and a threat to society! In the slammer you go with those evil pot smokers!!! It would be interesting to know if NAMBLA members are watched by the porn squad, though... and if their public advocacy is allowed to be used to get warrants on them. hmm.
But anyway, if offensive jokes are ruled out, we wargamers are gonna be next. Remember that next time you play your PBW turn.
[ July 15, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]