[tumult]

Not brave enough to stand up for censorship with your own account?

I voted you down. I don't think your comment has any meaningful place in this thread. It should go without saying that you shouldn't use someone's death to soapbox about censorship or any other unrelated topic.

[anon_for_this_1]

Like my other account is any less anonymous? (didn't realize I was signed in with this account).

Journalistic convention is more related to the topic??

We've just found out about someone that suffered through a hell-filled life because of some sicko's fantasy. I'd hope we would try and figure out a way to spare others the same aweful fate.

[steveklabnik]

> because of some sicko's fantasy.

No, he suffered through a hell-filled life because of some sicko's _actions_.

[anon_for_this_1]

OK, agreed. And did that guy just get up one day and decide to do this out of the blue? No way -- he fantasized about it first. Thoughts lead to actions -- it's always worked that way. Granted, not ALL thoughts lead to ALL actions, but no action ever happened before the thought. Encouraging or feeding a _destructive_ fantasy doesn't have any positive outcomes (neutral at best).

[steveklabnik]

> no action ever happened before the thought.

What about 'crimes of passion'?

[uriel]

Oh, this is such a great argument for thought crimes! Because most crimes occur after somebody thinks of them, we should ban any thought (and by implication this includes any depiction) of any crime!

I'm sure that will work out great.

But it is hardly surprising that a religious person came up with this, given that most sins are already thought crimes.

[uriel]

Well, in fairness, religious people seem to have difficulty telling apart fantasies from reality...

After all, that is what faith is, a strong belief that your fantasies are real.

[anon_for_this_1]

Damn. Getting all teary-eyed reading the posts in the other thread. Life on this little rock can be so hard sometimes... RIP Bill.