Jim,
I agree with you- our right to free speech only goes so far, just as RKBA only goes so far (i.e. we don't have the right to shoot at anyone/thing, wherever/whenever we want). I wouldn't dispute anyone who made the claim that a libelous statement made on an Internet forum was just as much a grounds for a suit than one made in an op-ed piece. What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear) was that the Socialist Liberals want to go beyond libel and threats, and regulate even protected speech and content, on the grounds that "It's too accessible/they can learn how to build bombs/it stirs up hate/it's for the children". I fear that, in typical liberal fashion, in seeking to stop the proliferation of anonymous death threats and the like they will try to put blanket censorship on the Internet rather than prosecuting the specific instances of criminal intent. Their approach is always to make ordinary people into potential/actual criminals, and let the real hoodlums get away with murder. Also, I think that such measures would be a "testing of the waters" for more strict controls on vocal and print speech, as well. Freedom of thought is dangerous to their agenda, as well, and in time they will seek to control how we think as well as how we act.
AS for what would I do if someone was going to shoot up the school my kids attend- my children are/will be home-schooled, so either I or my wife would be there to shoot that psycho dead if he tried. If I heard him say he was going to shoot up Sen. Richard Bohica Elementary, I would call the police, unless I were in close proximity, it were happening right then and there, and I was in a position to stop him. I have a TX CHL, and have the right to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party if, under the law, I had the right to protect myself in said circumstances.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.