Geo, I
suppose you could argue this but only as a particularily poor attempt to refute my argument. I am no more overwhelmed by your logic than I have been overwhelmed by my wife's choice of buying "quilted" toiletpaper.
You must remember not to feel like you are sapiens imprimus just because you are a computer nerd who has grappled a couple of blarts in his time
The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.
You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment. I did not raise any question as to whether or not this is the case but chose to base my refutio on questioning whether or not the fact that the first amendment applies affects the outcome from a public policy perspective, and also employed the comparative position under most civil law european legislative systems. That is not an academic supposition, but more a question of application of the relevant national legal systems to your premis.
Since then, we have bandied about various suppositions, the most interesting of which frankly was Puke's confession as to watching to many, ahem, indiscreet movies.
We have still not reached a conclusion about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. You simply claim they do, I claim that the current state of legal thought is that they do not.
On a side note, I recently (this morning) came across a recent UK case which does go to emphasise the fundamentally differing viewpoints between us English and you Americans.
The situation was that one of our public libraries operated 'an internet cafe'. The PC's each had a filter that prohibited access to adult or inappropriate sites. A UK-resident American took the local council to court on the basis that the filter breached her right to freedom of speech and her lawyer quoted recent American cases where this had been the case and the relevant court had oveturned a converse earloier ruling. The English court through this out of court on the basis that anyone is entitled to restrict access on pure public policy issues, and that the claimant would need to show that they had been materially prejudiced by the relevant restriction. The American Bar Associaiton on reporting on this case support the UK view, not the US