This is the tv movie about how one lawyer took the first amendment to court and won - well, sort of.
The case of Rice et al vs. Paladin Press is real enough. What they never tied up for me however, is the publication of "Hit Man", caused the murders in question.
Yes, there is a precise description on how to kill reasonably efficiently - but you can get that from numerous publications. Army manuals (which are sold on Amazon.com), martial arts books and movies, even war movies _could_ be used as an instruction on how to kill.
Paladin publishes many books with instructions on how to create booby traps, how to poach, change identities. The problem is that, unlike it was argued in the movie, these techniques can have legal applications as well. Poaching is an invaluable skill to a man trapped behind enemy lines, or just lost in the wilderness. If you're being chased enemy troops, building an efficient booby trap may safe your life. Similarly, just tinkering around to see if you can make one yourself is a perfectly legitimate activity, glossed over by the protagonists of this movie. And of course a minute description of the work of a hit man can be of invaluable help to writers. So the argument that "there is no legitimate application for this knowledge" doesn't fly.
The case that without "Hit Man", the killer James Perry (played by the great Clark Johnson) would not have taken the job is thin. Book may have made him slightly more effective as a killer, but it never stopped him from being caught. Also, what is glossed over, is that the dad is a hardworking, talented man, who is punished for his work ethic by being forced to pay $25,000 PER MONTH in child support. (Hints of OJ, anyone?). Now I'm not saying they had it coming, but with a universal health insurance system, they would probably still be alive. Ex-husbands won't sympathize, especially not with the crabby sister. The man's paying the bills, the least she can do is show some respect!!
I'm not justifying murder, but if as an independent person, you ask yourself, could anyone have done something to avert this course of events, then there is plenty of blame to go around.
Anyway, in the end, the "positive" note the movie ends on is the supreme court granting the family's lawyers the right to go to trial. Of course, they never get there and if they did, it is highly doubtful that they would have won. The family instead settled and took the money. Again.