[tammycravit]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Freedom of speech. Interesting. You can't stand up in a theater and shout FIRE. Someone could get hurt. A person can, however, write a book on the safest way (for the pedophile) to have sexual relations with a child.

Surely. Just as there's nothing preventing someone from writing a book entitled "The Best Ways to Stand Up and Shout 'Fire' in a Theater". Likewise, it's against the law in the United States to make high explosives without a license. (18 USC 842). However, writing and publishing a book that explains the best way to make high explosives would not be illegal.

Writing or talking about a prohibited act is qualitatively different from doing the prohibited act. And, the law does not generally place culpability for the prohibited act on the shoulders of the person who wrote about it.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I may be wrong but I think he's supposed to have warned against penetration. Some legal distinction? Would penetration of a child be considered (legally) hurting someone, whereas doing the other things he advocates "not" hurt the child?

No, but the penalty may be lesser, depending on the circumstances. For example, in California (whose Penal Code I know fairly well in my work as a paralegal) a 25-year-old man who penetrated a 12-year-old child would face up to life in prison, whereas the same 25-year-old who committed a "lewd and lascivious act" upon that same child — which usually means sexual touching or the like without penetration — would probably not face more than
eight years in prison.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

So. Is the freedom to drink, like free speech, always right?

No, of course not. But in the United States, viewpoint-based restrictions on freedom of speech (that is, restrictions on the speech because of its content) are almost always impermissible as a matter of law. Though it's true that the Constitution protects us chiefly from infringement by the government, the same reasons why viewpoint-based governmental intrusion into free speech are viewed with great caution should caution us in the private realm to exercise great care in calling for viewpoint-based restrictions on speech.