They do lead to humorous Court Case names:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_of_Books_v._Kansas

> How can an enforcement action be made against an inanimate object?

Until the early 1980s, it couldn't. Then we went nuts to protect little Timmy from Satan's Weed and nose powder.

Welcome to the world of patents.

You mean a copyright?

Originally, lawsuits like these against inanimate objects were a legal convenience used when the courts had no idea who the owner was. Using them for asset forfeiture is a nasty piece of sophistry used to dodge normal due process requirements.

> Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?

Holocaust denial is already illegal in many places.

Not in America, land of the climate change denialists and fearers of sharia law.

>and fearers of sharia law

What is there not to fear about sharia law? Personally I'd be terrified of living under a legal system in which many of the basic rights I take for granted simply cease to exist, and in which my wife and any daughters I have are considered second-class citizens.

Specifically, there's an expectation that Obama will institute it.

Because he's Muslim, see?

> Why not simply file judgement against ideas and imagination next?

They already do. Free speech is curbed in much of Europe and several are in jail for holding unpopular opinions.