i'm very much--i mean, "hey," you know, "samuel clemens." let's hear it for mark twain. he's wonderful. i can't stand the thought that people are going to throw out huckleberry finn and put nappy hair in. you know, that's not the way. let me ask-- one of the things people who work in the area of fighting off censorship, we tend to demonize people who want to censor. there is a sense that, you know, "these are the people who walk into walls, "and they're not well-read, "and they-- they're just determined to shut out the world." but are there times when a parent could go to a school administrator and say, "look, my son or daughter is reading this in the fourth grade, and it's really not appropriate"? would that always be wrong? i think a thoughtful-- a thoughtful parent coming into school to talk about something is always welcome. it's the zealot that we all jump away from. thoughtfulness is appreciated always. is it--is it, then, that teacher's job to change the book? i don't know. (mannino) well, i'm hoping that the decision-- people make bad decisions. i mean, not every

people back here in the united states confused james ross clemens with his cousin, samuel langhorn clemenswn as mark twain. the most famous writer in the country, one of the most famous men on earth at the time. his cousin got sick in london, his cousin had the same last name as him and that was apparently enough to convince a newspaper that mark twain was dead or at least dying in london. and that is when mark twain, famously said on may 31st, 1897, quote, the report of my death was an exaggeration. the modern terrible inheriter is this guy. the head of the taliban in pakistan. the first time he was reported to be dead was on the day the pakistani taliban announced he was the new leader. it was an amazing headline that day. they've named their new leader but we're pretty sure he's dead. so that was summer of 2009. turns out he was not dead. he was their new leader. then in the fall of that year, again, counterterrorism officials insist he's dead, dead in a drone strike. he was not dead then either. so in the summer of '09, they said he was dead and he wasn't dead. later in 2009 they said

between legislative and individual responsibilities, though he was a strong individual of this, samuel clemens conceded in testimony before a subcommittee in 1886 it was wrong to accuse americans of dishonesty and he said in his words that you i do consider that those persons who are called pirates made pirates by the collusion of the united states government. if anyone is to blame, it is not dishonesty. similarly, the american copyright authority, summed up these exonerating distinctions in his 1879 ridings that piracy is the use of literary violation of the owner and is not piracy to take without authority either in part or the whole of what is written if neither a statue or the common laws are violated. this is not piracy because no law is violated and without misrepresentation, many american repairs of the time could not have had this. yet those others slipped away their distinctions in the indignation. the practice of reprinting books have become widespread and then they scramble to the vast and continuous resource and over the years sir walter scott in the brownings and george eliot and

though he was a strong advocate of international copyright, samuel clemens, mark twain conceded in testimony before the senate subcommittee in 1886 that it was wrong to accuse americans of dishonesty. he said in his words i do consider those persons who are pirates who were made favored by the collusion of the united states government. congress if anybody is to blame for their actions it is not dishonesty. the drone in the copyright world sure to pleasshut up these exong distinctions in his 1879 treaty he said in the law of copyright privacy is the use of liquo flay property violation of the legal rights of the owner. it isn't piracy to take without authority or a part or one another as written is neither a statute or the common law is thereby violating. this is not piracy because no law is violated and without misrepresentation is the authorship it isn't plagiarism. they couldn't accurately be called pirates were plagiarists yet they slipped away such a distinction in their indignati indignation. throughout the 19th century, protests against yankee pirates issued from both sides of the atla