Does this public outrage (to the extent it is there) imply that the first amendment to the American constitution is wrong?

Kent Davis - what I am suggesting to you is that it is not necessary to feel insulted, particularly as an audience member. And suppression and education are not the same thing as repression. We all have impulses we control.

And no, I am not suggesting that that which the establishment opposes is necessarily great art, rather that it is not necessarily thereby to be deemed not to be art. If, however the challenge to the establishment is part of what causes art to inspire thought, then the aspect of challenge is a virtue of the art.

Merely to react that something is beyond the pale prevents consideration of artistic merit (if any).

I imagine that most of the posters overnight to this thread are American. I appreciate that withdrawing from a manifestation of speech is not the same as saying that it should be suppressed, but there seems to be a similarity of thought. I thought Americans would rise in defence of free speech, but it seems that not all will do so. Would there be constitutionally valid legal ground today in the USA to prevent the printing and publication of either of the books cited, or Mein Kampf?

Does this not provide food for thought? How far is it from saying that only speech (and therefore art) that does not offend is free?