"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:aVeSb.51839$U%5.286277@attbi_s03...


Good point. The law really does seem to be schizophrenic about this issue.

Not much more than anything else.

Figuring out where someone becomes an "accessory" to a crime is a really,
really fine line.

Generally, you need specific knowledge about the criminal act. Prior restraint
on free speech is a hard thing to enforce even with a statute (or else these sites
would be long gone).

These sites will argue that they exist only to facilitate legal sharing of information.
The fact that they could be used for illegal activity doesn't making them (by their
argument) any more liable than Xerox is if someone sticks a $100 bill in the copier
and starts running off copies.