Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

[Fallguy]

FOXNews.com - Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Wilder Publications warns readers of its reprints of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, among others, that “This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.â€

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."

The warning seems to be offending more people than the documents themselves.

Amazon.com’s customer reviews of Wilder’s copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation show an overwhelming number of people speaking out against the disclaimer, describing it as “insulting,†“sickening†and “frankly, horrifying.â€

Another review for Wilder’s edition of the Federalist Papers calls for an all-out boycott of the publisher, sarcastically pointing out the "dangerous ideas" it’s trying to protect children from: "limited government, checks and balances, constrained judicial review, dual sovereignty of states and federal government, and deliberative democracy."

And though warning labels are usually posted to protect a company from potential lawsuits, constitutional attorney Noel Francisco says this disclaimer has no legal benefits.

"Would it ever be a legal concern that selling the Constitution would expose you to some kind of liability? No. Never,†Francisco told FoxNews.com. "The Constitution is the founding document of the country, an operative legal document."

As for the idea that this warning label might help keep these works from being yanked off bookshelfs, Francisco says it is more likely to have the opposite effect: people not carrying the book because it has the disclaimer.

"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence," he said.

Amazon customers appear to agree. Almost all of the reviews discussing the disclaimer end with the same thought: don't buy from this publisher.

Efforts to reach the publisher were unsuccessful.

[Guest jackdm3]

How do you defeat these guys?!

Now I'm starting to understand book burning.

[MCSCOTT]

"By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence,"

Sounds to me like exactly what they were trying to do with such a label. To me it seems obvious that they knew this type of thing would stir up some controversy and get them more attention, but personally I think it should backfire on them in the form of the boycott mentioned. Heck I really think in a way there should be alot more done to those involved, but once again they can hide behind our Constitution in order to say and write that go against that very Constitution. At some point the people of this country are going to have to get some kind of handle on this type of situation, but like with every other thing wrong with this country nothing will ever be done.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I find the disclaimer kind of stupid, but FWIW their copy of the Communists Manifesto has the same exact disclaimer.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Dumb. A Poor CYA attempt... gone awry.

Political Correctness taken to the extreme.

[Raoul]

Move along citizens, there's nothing to see here.

[Guest jackdm3]

Or at least "single page burning."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"We know who you are. We know where you live. We know how stupid your are, also."

[Mike.357]

isn't the constitution kind of a warning label all by itself?

[hipower]

I really don't know what to say. It's just so ridiculously, blatantly, yet openly a way to remove the founding declaration of ideals fom the school system. If you can't teach values to the children; is it any surprise that political and social indoctrination is being taught?

[Guest 1010011010]

I can't shake the feeling that the people who consider such a disclaimer patently ridiculous have not taken the time to read these documents recently, if ever.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've read those documents and I don't see the need for a disclaimer. Are they dangerous

if they fall into the wrong hands? Are they chock full of lies? In other words, what do you mean?

[LagerHead]

isn't the constitution kind of a warning label all by itself?

And in your honor, I have blatantly stolen that for my sig line.

[Guest 1010011010]

In other words, what do you mean?

The wording of the disclaimer made me think of the bits of the apportionment clauses in the Constitution about slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person. I would certainly hope that if we re-wrote the Constitution today we might leave out the provisions for how to count people owned by other people as less than human.

It looks like this is just a generic disclaimer they put on many of their historical publications and has nothing to do with the Constitution specifically. Not an issue until someone decided to try to make it one.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We don't want to rewrite the Constitution. There is a completely acceptable way of

changing things and has been used since day one; amendments.

I don't say it is an issue, except that they are a very PC bunch and that is ridiculous.

The PC crowd is another way to censure free speech and to redefine literal words

into something completely different. It is also harrassment to a free thinking

individual. It is another way for someone to tell you how to think. It is ruining this country.

[Guest Caveman]

The wording of the disclaimer made me think of the bits of the apportionment clauses in the Constitution about slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person. I would certainly hope that if we re-wrote the Constitution today we might leave out the provisions for how to count people owned by other people as less than human.

It looks like this is just a generic disclaimer they put on many of their historical publications and has nothing to do with the Constitution specifically. Not an issue until someone decided to try to make it one.

.....Do you really believe this, or are you just trying to play devil's advocate to start ? Either way, I disagree with you completely.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

.....Do you really believe this, or are you just trying to play devil's advocate to start ? Either way, I disagree with you completely.

The part about it being a generic disclaimer are true. I checked some of their other historical books, and they do indeed have the same exact disclaimer.

[Guest 1010011010]

.....Do you really believe this, or are you just trying to play devil's advocate to start ? Either way, I disagree with you completely.

There's nothing to "believe" or disagree with about it being a generic disclaimer put on many of their historical publications.

What the disclaimer says or that it exists in the first place might be something to talk about, but that particular well has been poisoned by trying to cast it as an attack on the foundational documents of the US when it's just a standard bit of boilerplate they slap on everything.