I didn't know the Anarchist Cookbook was illegal, in reference to someone who mentioned such.

I don't have much to add to the proceedings, but I will put in something:

-I did have a trenchcoat in high school. I liked it, but it was really impractical. You'd either have to take it off and hang it on the back of your desk (a pain in the ass, given the length) or keep it on, which was, well, also a pain in the ass. If memory serves, I graduated the year Columbine happened, but I'd grown tired of my trench coat before that. High school was when I broke out of my shell and I had friends in all social circles, so I don't think I ever got any flak about wearing one. I think the faculty was more concerned about me having long hair. I was the example in this case; the principal, the fucking principal, sat me down in the middle of the quad and CUT MY FUCKING HAIR. You can bitch about this all you want, how illegal it is, but remember two things: This was in the middle of Columbine hysteria, and in a Red State no less, so no one cares about them making a long haired boy in a fear culture cutting his hair, and also, this is the South, I think they still let teachers spank kids here. It's backwards, but well, there's not much I could do about it aside from writing a long editorial about it in the school paper and an opinion piece in the local paper.

-My first exposure to the Anarchist Cookbook wasn't in a bookstore or anything. It was my freshman year. When people were still using AOL :O I knew a guy who had a copy of the cookbook, printed out on computer paper, stapled together. It's obvious he didn't get it in a bookstore, but this was already a weird kid, and he took the time to look it up, print it out, show it to people... I think the kid grew up to be a McDonalds manager, and people are STILL creeped out by him.

-I'll defend free speech to my dying day, but at the same time, isn't there a precedent to using something irresponsibly or criminally to accessory charges? I don't agree with the information, but OK, I can't deny you the right to put it out there. Using it to hurt other people, though? Considering what they've already done (violent video game bannings and such), it's obvious people think (wrongly in most cases) that media influences people, did not the publishers feel this would embolden a potential pedophile? It's already scary as hell to see just how many people are fucking perverts (don't look at your own area in the sex offenders database if you want to sleep soundly tonight) but isn't giving them the information to get away with it, well, criminal?

I agree it's sick shit, but I'm a HUGE advocate of free speech. Do I think this pedophilia book should exist? Fuck no. I think we should use it as kindling. But... in a position of power, I'd be reluctant to outright ban it because you DO fall victim to a potential slippery slope. This book gets flat out banned, that could set a precedent... To go to ridiculous lengths with it, they could, say, ban the movie American Beauty because Lester lusts after a teenaged cheerleader, which could (and probably is) seen as pedophilia.

OK, let me phrase it another way: if it's art, I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with it. If it's not art but more like a how-to, I'd LIKE to fucking get rid of it, but I wouldn't want those in power to remove my ability to read anything I wanted should they choose.

The only gray factor is using it irresponsibly or illegally. If someone uses it to get away with a crime, then fuck that. I don't condone censorship in the slightest, but it's hard to make a case against censorship when it gives you carte blanche to read or have available even the sickest shit.