I don't think that the word most means what the submitter thinks it means. Either that or the submitter is implying that if you don't boycott Paypal you aren't knowledgeable.
I was also there when *cough* alt.sex was created; it took all the sex off mainstream usenet and put it in one tidy place.
Because all companies restrict themselves to
Because all US based domains are registered under
I don't think
IANAL but analogies rarely hold any legal water because the laws that govern each activity are completely separate.
The Missouri statute quoted above includes the 'reasonable grounds to believe that he has authorization' provision and I doubt that any sexual assault legislation would have a similar provision.
Whether or not a court would find that Google does have these 'reasonable grounds' is too complicated a question for me to more than guess at. It may be that the onus is on Google to prove that their belief was reasonable or alternatively there might be precedent about what constitutes 'reasonable grounds' that is applicable to the case.
Of course unless Google is charged with violating this particular Missouri law the question isn't particularly relevant.
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr