My point is that Mein Kampf did not kill 50 million people; Hitler and his regime did. To argue causality between words and actions is to argue against free will of people, and therefore against personal responsibility.
"My point is that Mein Kampf did not kill 50 million people; Hitler and his regime did."
Yes it did. And not totally correct.
Mein Kampf represented the essence of the Nazis just as America's Bill of Rights relates to the USA. So too this board has its rules and the influence of its founder.
Banning a text that left unchecked will lead to mass murder and untold suffering throughout generations shows a huge expression of free will, and a pretty good use of it, if you may. Writing it shows next to none but rather a purging of one's hate and malice, with this internal line of thought then ready to be spread to the minds of others.
I hear you loud and clear. Look from a systemic viewpoint.
Texts in the hands of people can have a great power at influencing the behaviour of their readers. When the author and readers are strongly prone to certain thoughts and actions as a result of a particular book, then short of education, banning a text may be an effective thing to do to avert a particular reality from occurring that a text may propose.
The fact that books are inanimate objects makes censorship possible in this way, rather than putting someone in prison. Sometimes people lose their freewill and are drawn to books... and meglomaniacs.
My point is that Mein Kampf did not kill 50 million people; Hitler and his regime did. To argue causality between words and actions is to argue against free will of people, and therefore against personal responsibility.