it is literature about the reinvoking of slavery, it is very graphic in language, I did warn you
http://www.outwar.com/page.php?x=247375

Its simply the product of sick minds, a meme which plague carriers keep spreading. If you need to ask such a question, you are already a helpless victim.

Two words:

First Amendment

Borg(not),

Cryptic. But what in the hell is a First Amendmant?

Tent,

???. You are not familiar with the Bill of Rights? If not, where are you from so I can get some perspective in my discussions with you.

Either Tent is a complete idiot, or he is critiquing my spelling. I did fix the spelling of "Amendment", which was a typo. Picky, picky.

Borg(not),

With the likes of you one never knows exactly what kooky slang word you may throw out.

Having spent a stint at teaching, yes, I do know my Bill of Rights. Wonder if you do?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Borg(not),

You did find your way to it, but fail miserably to understand it. Indeed, Congress may make no such laws, but each of the several States shall have the power to make laws governing what is and is not permissible speech.

Okay, I still don't understand why "Cryptic" was thrown in, but I guess that's an attempt at humor by Tent?

Tent, I got news for you: The constitution is as binding on states as it is on the federal government. But yes, there are cases where freedom of speech is restricted for the purposes of protecting the public or privacy. For instance, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre when you know there isn't one. However, restricting the freedom of speech is not typically applied to the publication of books.

Leper,

You're full of it.

The Constitution is not binding on the Federal Government. Either get some legal grounding, or find subjects to discuss on which you're knowledgeable. Time to drop the bullshit.

Published material is the first matter that comes under scrutiny by censors. Where in the hell do you live?

Tent-

The U.S. Constitution is not binding on the federal government?! *I'm* "full of it"?! This must be what it feels like to have the Elephant Man call you ugly.

Have you never heard of a federal and state statutes being ruled "unconstitutional?" I didn't make it up. I tell you what, read the constitution, analyze some Supreme Court cases about the interpretation of the constitution, and get back to me. THEN you can start saying people are "full of it."

Leper,

Idiot.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a commercial contract. Your not knowing this simple fact leads you to make statements of which only unschooled idiots are guilty.

The laws arising out of that commercial agreement are called business laws. Only the idiot would seek to transform the commercial body of law into a civil or criminal one. As I said, you are unschooled.

You know nothing of value of the Constitution of the United States of America. Your assuming that it is the well-spring of Federal and State Statutes merely goes to prove your idiocy.

A question for an idiot. If legal goverance is born of Constitutional Law, then what was the need for a Bill of Rights? Idiot.

Tent-

How can you say that the Constitution only applies to business law? THAT's idiocy. Let's take the 8th amendment for example. You think outlawing "cruel and unusual punishment" has no bearing on federal or state criminal statutes? Would you like case citations to prove that it does?

And I never said the Constitution is the "well-spring of Federal and State Statutes." All I said is that it's BINDING on state and federal statutes. Those two statements are clearly different. That's not just idiocy, but a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument.

The text says so itself: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land"

Maybe you'll listen to Chief Justice Marshall (the 2nd Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) cause he says "The courts of the United States can, without question, revise the proceedings of the executive and legislative authorities of the states, and if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution, may declare them to be of no legal validity." Martin v. Hunter's Lesee, 14 U.S. 304

Any more claims of my ignorance? Please keep saying that, you're just costing yourself credibility at this point.

Leper,

Go learn what constitutes the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, then come back an offer an opinion that is worthy of the consideration of others.