[eric11210]

The Miller test is very, very difficult to get past when you are trying to ban a book. Don't forget that all three parts of the test must be satisfied in order for a book to be banned and it may well be argued that he was expressing his political opinion that the law as it currently is written is unjust. Again, I don't like what he has to say (To be perfectly honest, I'm basing myself on what I've heard others mention. I have never read the book in question myself, though having been a victim, I do know a little something about how such people attempt to justify themselves). Also, I happen to be an amateur historian and know a little something about how the First Amendment has been interpreted in the past.

Not to mention the fact that in order for the Miller test to even be applied, someone would have to file a grievance against the guy in court and spend the time and money to prove the case to the court, plus defend against potential appeals.

The First Amendment is probably the most cherished part of the United States constitution. It also probably the most reviled part of the constitution as well, depending on which side of a particular issue you happen to fall out on. In essence, it protects the right to express one's opinion on pretty much any subject imaginable.

If this guy's book makes the argument that he is presenting this material because he feels the laws are unjustly written, then I am reasonably certain that the courts would uphold his right to publish because he is expressing a political opinion, albeit one that most people would find at least as reprehensible as the political opinion expressed Adolph Hitler during World War II.

However, the fact that the vast, vast majority of people in the United States believe that the mass murder of six million men, women and children simply on the basis of their religion is positively repugnant does not curtail the right of people who disagree to openly state that Hitler was right to do what he did and to openly advocate for the United States to follow the example of the Nazi party. It only crosses the line into being illegal when someone actively pursues their views and engages in such mass murder or other discriminatory acts against those whom Hitler claimed deserved to be exterminated.

I don't think it's legally any different than the Anarchist Cookbook, which is also legal and which advocates violent overthrow of the government. It's legal because a political opinion is being expressed, albeit a particularly reprehensible one.