Yeah, I feel like this has partly become a discussion of author intention vs. audience reception. An author can intend anyone to be a good or bad guy or gal, but that isn't necessarily how the audience will receive it. You as an author have no control over how any audience interprets your work. That includes whether an audience takes your work as a call to go do something in the real world, like terrorism. In terms of the discussion about legal/market consequences, it's kind of the same. If you write the next Turner Diaries, you personally won't go to jail for it. But if the next Timothy McVeigh carries it in his pocket while doing some terrorism, then tells everyone how much it influenced him, you may have trouble finding places to sell it, even if you never meant for any of that to happen.
Yes, sir. As according to the author. I wouldn't put much stock in societal definitions of "good" and "bad," though. That's all subjective. And there're are enormous groups of assholes that would love to read books about Whites oppressing Blacks or Jews or whatever. It's the existence of that asshole market that leads to objectionable content disclaimers in the first place. That's exactly what it is. And the reader is always right. Rule #1 of marketing.
