Just to get back on topic, if you want to see what this badware warning looks like, search Google for "serial codes" and the first result, when clicked on, takes you to this page: http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.serials.ws/
See? Now what if that said: You still have the option of pressing on and blowing up your computer OR your brain... your choice. How does that violate "free speech"?
free speech aside, I'm guessing it'd hurt google's stock but my main point was, and still is, what "may hurt your body or your brain" is very, very subjective. if google did something like that they could no longer be politically, morally, or ethically neutral-- which is what I personally want from a search engine, and I'm guessing a lot of others do as well. there's a difference between a pedophile at a child molestor. nor is every child molestor a pedophile. as professional in the mental health field I'm kind of disturbed you assume they're the same; it's that sort of attitude-- on a wide scale-- that prevents people like that from getting help if at some point they are on the verge of acting on their attractions.
I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that the distinction, while it makes a difference in terms of treating the offender (and I've had years of experience in doing that, as well as published research which shouldn't be difficult for you to find), it makes no difference whatsoever to the victims.
the whole point is that you can be a pedophile without being an "offender." I'm interested in your published research on that material in particular if you have it handy. did you mean in a medical journal or your blog? I don't understand how you can't see any validity to the argument I'm presenting, though: morality is subjective. why should google, rather than its visitors, be making choices for what's moral or not?
I just did a search for a fairly obsolete bit of software I have lying around, and tons of sites came up with this warning. Some of them had titles along the lines of "cracks" and "serial codes", which I would have avoided anyway, but not all of them did. I think this is a good move overall, although I don't know why Google doesn't just boot these sites from its index? It would probably be more legally defensible to do that (because they aren't obliged to list any site they don't want to, but they are obliged not to libel anyone and I wonder how many false positives they have in their lists). As for Minstrel's idea of putting out a warning about morally dubious sites, I can imagine that would be counter-productive. People would just click out of curiosity, or just plain rebelliousness.