Why do I need better analogies? My point is that talking about illegal things is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for censorship, and my point of view i

Why do I need better analogies? My point is that talking about illegal things is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for censorship, and my point of view is that "Steal this book" is an important book and an excellent argument for freedom of speech. A how-to manual for paedophelia is not an excellent argument for freedom of speech. I picked that example to show that talking about illegal activities or even about how to do illegal things is not a good test for censorship. That doesn't mean I am in favour of the book in question, just that I am in favour of picking a different set of criteria other than "Explains how to break the law." If you need a less challenging example, think about a book discussing how to break cryptosystems. That information can be used to circumvent DMCA. The reason I don't use such an easy example is that it leads us to saying "I/We should allow books that explain how to break the laws we personally don't like." I don't like that criteria either, which is why I didn't use it as an example. I like the laws that prohibit the destruction of property with explosives, which is why allowing "Steal this book!" to be distributed is an excellent argument for me to ponder. Update: The TL;DR is that I'm not equating the two books, the criterium "how-to for breaking the law" equates the two books. If you find equating "Steal this book" with paedophelia an abhorrent comparison, I suggest the flaw here is in the argument that "how-to manuals for crime are wrong."