I have actually read most of Mein Kampf. It is a chore to read, but not because of it's bigotry, but it is just poorly written spittle. It is good for people to see it. Most have NO IDEA what is actually in that book. If anything, it should be required reading in diversity classes and mental health courses.

I understand Germany's laws, don't know that I agree; I really don't. It is similar, IMO, to the law being brought forth in Israel about using Holocaust imagary.

I am American. I view the 1st Amendment as almost sacrosanct.

...for banning this text and similarly the Nazi swastika and salute. The danger of glorification of this period by dangerous elements is very real and is I suppose for Germany, essentially the same thing as treason. This is an act that even our Constitution forbids in blanket terms:

Why we have gone so far in protecting hate speech is beyond me, and in my opinion, becomes very problematic when we get to the debate of whether there is such a thing as a "hate crime." I would rather just admit that we've been negligent in enforcing this penalty for such acts and if not ban it, turn it into a "prohibited class" of individuals for several purposes. I think that we don't construe such acts as the propagation of Neo-Nazism as treasonous is a product of our racist past. I'd have signed and enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts though, so I'm not exactly the penultimate civil libertarian in the views of some at this website (Gungeon *cough*); I'm a bleeding Federalist and I do not believe the Bill of Rights was intended to afford protection to acts in clear violation of other parts of the Constitution. To this extent, I think we interpret the 1st Amendment as protecting such speech at the expense of the 9th Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Would we have let ex-Confederates march in uniform down Pennsylvania Avenue and salute the Stars and Bars?

And we don't want to start down it, that's why.

And was not the whole point of the BOR to AMEND the Constitution?

It's addition, it doesn't override other articles and clauses of the Constitution. And yes we do prohibit certain types of speech...the classic example being you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

This sort of crap ought not be swept under the carpet. It needs to be expoosed.

only light will do that, even if it may be harsh.

It's like describing how one would go about raping a woman, then adding a "Rape is Wrong" footnote.

It was available in Germany at one point, however; and the Nazis did take over.

But setting that aside I wonder how legally Bavaria can be claiming copyright on it since wasnt it printed back in 1926? Or has copyright been extended even further?

Amazon have it listed - £8.72 paperback.

I don't actually believe its ever been out of print. I've never read it so have no idea whatsoever what its all about.

trumps just about anything, in my view. I would say allow it to be published. I say that having actually read Mein Kampf. I agree with previous poster about how badly written it is; it's very unpersuasive, but provides insight into Hitler's disordered mind. Besides, even in the Nazi era, the book was rarely actually read even in Germany (according to William L. Shirer), though it was a bestseller; people bought it as a wedding gift, coffeetable item, etc. For Germans it was politically correct to have a copy visible in the home somewhere. Most Nazis didn't become Nazis by reading Mein Kampf.

Although freedom of the press and of expression is written into German law, the country is generally more wary of free speech than the US, where Zündel's dissemination of racist literature and refutation of the Holocaust -- while distasteful to most -- was perfectly legal.
 
In Germany, however, it was not. Zündel was deported to his native country in March 2005 after a long legal battle with the Canadian government. He found himself immediately under arrest and up against the German justice system. If the 66-year-old is found guilty by a court in Mannheim of incitement to racial hatred, libel and defamation of the memory of the dead, he faces up to five years in prison.
 
....

 
German law therefore constrains press freedom, said Udo Branahl, a professor of media law at the University of Dortmund.
 
"The penal law code says Holocaust denial is a punishable offense," he said. "That ban limits press freedom and overrides the right to free expression in the mass media."
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1896750,00.html

Supplement containing extracts from Mein Kampf The publisher had planned to include a supplement with extracts from Mein Kampf with this Thursday's edition
25 January 2012 Last updated at 12:31 ET

A British publisher who planned to sell extracts of Adolf Hitler's political manifesto Mein Kampf on the streets of Germany has backed down.

The state of Bavaria, which owns the copyright to the book, had threatened legal action if publisher Peter McGee sold pamphlets containing the extracts.

Mr McGee sells reproductions of Nazi-era newspapers along with historians' analysis of their content.

He will now render Hitler's text illegible when his pamphlets are sold.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16728077