"I think your examples are not helping to convice me that this bill makes sense. " I think I was pretty unclear with my original post. My point wasn't to defe

"I think your examples are not helping to convice me that this bill makes sense. " I think I was pretty unclear with my original post. My point wasn't to defend the bill. I think the bill is ridiculous. My point (which I guess I made very poorly) was that the parent's arguments only sound silly because people here already disagreed with the bill. I was trying to say, "If the topic were something that isn't already a contested issue, then the parent's arguments wouldn't work. They only work because people already agree". I was worried about bringing up murder and child pornography, which is why I added the footnote stating these were not equivalent. I'll answer the only thing in your post which wasn't about the bill (since I wasn't talking about it): "There's no harm sharing/printing even the kind of links you point out." I disagree. As others have pointed out, it's probably already illegal to some degree (e.g., if I give you the phone number of a hitman, knowing that you plan to use his services, I can probably be arrested as an accomplice. This is the same thing). "And last but not least: Reducing a discussion to this kind of dilemma ('Are you supporting the bill or supporting child pornography') is very irritating and a somewhat annoying trend" I hate this as well, but I wasn't doing that in the least. Sorry it came off that way.