> Speaking of cliches, I suppose that old thing about how free speech doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, applies here. You can't preach the violent overthrow of the government, either. Why would teaching murder be acceptable?

The "Fire!" example is sort of an extreme one in which your words are directly linked to ensuing violence. Don't be so sure about not being allowed to preach the violent overthrow of the government, though. The current precedent that governs this sort of thing is a 1969 Supreme Court case called Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Court held that inflammatory, violent speech (in this case a klansman preaching violence against the government and minorities) was protected.

From the decision: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Basically, unless your speech is likely to incite "imminent lawless action," e.g. saying "Go kill Mr. So and So," it would be allowed.

> I guess I was thinking of something more than censorship. Right or wrong, we ban a lot of stuff than is not as bad as that.

Like what?

> I wonder what would happen if someone marketed a game about assassinating the president?

They have. In 2004 a company released a game called "JFK Reloaded" in which the player got to recreate the Kennedy assassination.

Stephen