Dude, do you really not see this as a first ammendment issue? I mean, christ, they were getting sued because of a crime that they didn't commit, and the connection is that one of the murderers read their website. Like I think you and I are on the same page as NAMBLA, but what if you had a website that promoted violent revolution, and someone read it, and went out and killed a bunch of people trying to start a revolution, do you believe that you should be held responsible, or should the guy who went out and killed them be held responsible? What about Marilyn Manson, the kids listened to his songs condoning violence before going into Columbine, was that Marilyn Manson's fault or the kids? What if someone had a website saying "Abortion is murder, and we are seeking to make it illegal", even though they're obviously a group that wants to block off abortion clinics, be it legal or not, and some dude checks the website and then goes and blows up an abortion clinic, killing everyone inside? Who's responsible, the group or the bomber?
If this line is drawn, which of these would fall under it?