I continue to be impressed by the level of debate and thought on this site, which I think gives the lie to the barb in Aldus's last post.

No one is pretending there are easy answers to this question, and I also agonise over the points raised by Bill D and Chet W. However I still find that on balance I believe society as a whole to be better off with free expression of views however hateful (in either sense of the term). As intimated by Earl, the one sure way of ensuring these views survive is to drive them underground.

Steve, you may be saddened by peoples mistrust in "democratic" government, but those of us from Europe (I am assuming you are in the US) have had first hand experience in the not so distant past of where democratically elected governments can go if allowed. All that is required is to keep the majority of voters happy - and what better way than identifying a minority who cause all the problems - blacks, the urban poor, the unemployed, gypsies, jews etc. If we are to prevent this sort of song being written or at the very least prevent it being taken up as an anthem by people like Chet's custodees, the causes have to be addressed. Of course that means doing lots of things, as a community, that most people don't want, starting with high taxes and putting people before profits, its so much easier to say "ban it" I also feel that you are misleading yourself if you think information on cook book chemistry and physics is not available to those who search.

Just a thought that occured to me as was typing, I can't substantiate this with examples, but I am reasonably certain there are similar contemporary songs around the world where one group identifies another as the enemy to be killed. I wonder just how much of this debate centres on the fact that this particular song is essentially an attack on the white middle class via the medium of their protectors? I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Pete M