But my post wasn't actually in response to the OP - but more so to others who were being emotional.
If you'd like to know my view on the op in a very unemotional way it's really very generalized:
"Anytime someone authors or produces a work that instructs another on how to commit an illegal act that person risks liability and scrutiny which is compounded if a recipient of their work actually acts on the knowledge given to engage in illegal activity - and possibly will face charges depending on the severity of the crime or action being suggested or encouraged and enabled.
If one such person doesn't want liability and scrutiny - and to possibly be found aiding and abedding (among other things) perhaps they should think twice."
Now - if you're worried about logic VS emotion - you should be fine with charges being brought against the author in question.
You should support this going to litigation.
After an intensive period of investigation, discovery, and pre-trial procedings there will be plenty of time to research vairous sources and actually discover the extent of his intentions and possible knowledge and own actions.
Then, in a court of law, he should have his chance to prove his innocence. His lawyer will argue his case, the opposing lawyer will argue his view - and a jury will convene and judge.
This is how our legal system does work - this is the purpose of it.
There's a vast series of checks and balances within the legal system designed to minimize the cost of litigation, to speed up the process, and to make it fair and thorough so, hopefuly, if one is *not* guilty - they will be found as such.
Then the judgment - whatever it may be - will stand unless there's a fault in the functioning and application of law - in which case he might be able to appeal the ruling, if it's not in his favor.
If you're worried about logic then you should at least expect the course of law to be properly upheld throughout the duration of this situation.
If you're truly confident that he has committed no wrongs - then him going to court over this issue shouldn't be that big of a deal. It might lead to a landmark case in favor or your view you're holding.
So - since we've dawned our Vulcan ears - isn't a chance to prove one's innocence in court when accused or suspected of a foul the logical solution to this situation?