10 ms·

We Analyzed 1,626 Banned Books Here's What We Found

16 points by joering2 3y ago

nonethewiser 3y ago
I find it highly subjective how they differentiate between banned and excluded books. They are all books deemed inappropriate for children. The “book ban” terminology suggests books should not be banned. But clearly there exist some books that dont belong in a children’s library.
- MarcScott 3y ago
  Is "The Life of Rosa Parks" inappropriate for children? Should it not be available in school libraries? Clearly I would agree that Fifty Shades of Grey should probably not be available in a school library. I would debate, given its historical significance, whether Mein Kampf should be included. But a book about the life of Rosa Parks should be mandatory in school libraries. I'm a UK resident, and might not be understanding things correctly. We don't do book banning or excluding over here.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > We don't do book banning or excluding over here. Really? If I wrote a book entitled “The Darwin Option: A retrospective and brutally honest view about why Darwin was right about women,” you wouldn’t protest if it was put in the school library where an edgy 13-year-old could read it?
    - MarcScott 3y ago
      Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? I already stated a book that shouldn't be in school libraries, one that is debatable, and one that should probably be included in libraries. My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > "Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument?" An Appeal to Extremes is not always inaccurate, nor always a fallacy. > "My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government." And you assume the government doesn't, or would not, put heavy pressure on any school or librarian that would dare have a book by David Duke on the shelves? Whether it be the UK or California? I actually like Florida because they make it clear and explicit instead of unclear and implicit, even if the results are identical but censoring different views. A written law, versus an unwritten rule.
        MarcScott 3y ago
        First off, thank you for the debate. It's what I come to HN for. Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I find it interesting that parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory. Should the Quran be available in libraries in Wyoming? Should the Bible be available in libraries in Pakistan?
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I don't know about each individual book listed; but I would like to sidestep that and address the fact idea that "parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory." This has always been true, and I believe, always will be true. Even the liberal free world has its limits beyond which you will experience outrage if you speak a certain thought. If Alex Jones wrote a book about Frog Biology, even the most astute "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately shout that has no place in the school. If David Duke wrote a book about understanding the Jewish race, once again, even the most "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately scream that should be purged from the shelves. I think many of the same individuals would be extremely opposed to a hypothetical book written by Trump entitled "Being a Good President and Fulfilling Your Civic Duties." Heck, what about "Andrew Tate's Guide to Being a Cool Dude?" What about "James Damore's guide to Diversity in Action at Google?" There is no disagreement, truly, that some books or ideas are beyond the pale. I think you would admit yourself that you would not want an Alex Jones Biology book to be where a child could find it even if it had no sexually explicit or otherwise harmful content other than the ideas inside of it. If you are opposed to any of my above hypotheticals (David Duke's Guide to Jews), you are admitting that sharing some ideas is harmful and should be stopped, like it or not. The only question is what content and what ideas is considered harmful. And of course, what standards determine what content should not be permitted. Florida has picked their standards - it's traditional religious opposition to LGBTQ+ content. Note that it's not even Christian opposition - There was an incident just last week with Islamic people in Canada burning the Rainbow flag (because there is only one religion on earth that still actively stones gays). They've chosen general religious values, as they generally apply across many religions' teachings. Like it? Don't like it? Don't pretend like either side doesn't have things they don't want to censor. It's what to censor, not whether we censor.
  - gillytech 3y ago
    many books are given innocent sounding titles while pushing revisionist historical information or outright racist views. A book about Rosa Parks seems on its face to be a good thing. But if you inspect the contents you may find objectionable and false information, not conducive to the development of children. What if there were 10 Rosa Parks books reviewed and were deemed fine, and that one was filled with false ideological nonsense? I find this article disingenuous.
    - MarcScott 3y ago
      Thank you. I haven't read the book, so I have no idea from which stance it views her life. It very well might be a racist book, and contain false information. Now I am going to have to read it, to make my own judgement.
  - electromech 3y ago
    The data set lists the book as "Banned Pending Investigation," and I don't see more info as to why or what that means.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    You misunderstand my point. If some books should be banned then banning books isnt an inherently bad thing. So we should stop saying “they are banning books!” to suggest something wrong is happening. Its a weak argument that should die. We have banned books from children’s libraries for a long time and should continue to do so.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vharuck 3y ago
  Then what would count as a book banning in a school? Nobody picks the books at random, there's always a justification. I think if the book is removed against the wishes of the librarian, that's an irregular ban. >But clearly there exist some books that dont belong in a children’s library. The article points out there are "regular" reasons for bannings, and they didn't include those books: "They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or 'mature/17+' topics from being placed on school bookshelves)." Besides, the article then points to the disproportionate number of books removed for (1) "violent content" when it's about political resistances versus military violence, and (2) "sexual topics" when it's about non-heterosexual relationships versus heterosexual. I've never heard of a book removed because it mentions a kid had a mom and a dad. There's obviously a motive besides protecting the children from violent or sexual content.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Irregular bans tend to be ideologically driven. They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or “mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves). So that basically boils down to: "Most everyone agrees that mature/17+ content should be excluded and it regularly is. In contrast, irregular bans are for content that is not typically excluded or that falls beyond the lists of categories that would immediately spring to someone's mind when asked what types of content shouldn't be shown to kids." On one hand, yeah, that's a subjective classification. Absolutely. On the other hand, anyone who argues that "I Am Rosa Parks" isn't an irregular ban is not really seriously engaging with that classification. There is a generally understood difference for most reasonable people between pornography and the history of Black activism (regardless of whether or not that portrayal of history is one that everyone likes). And while blurry lines can be really problematic, to argue that censorship of adult/mature material grants carte blanch rights for governments and public school boards to exclude any book from school settings is to basically give up entirely on trying to find any way to protect 1st Amendment rights in lower education. You're really not even going to try to draw a line anywhere? From the article: > We did entertain the viewpoint from ban advocates that the books being banned are largely driven by age-inappropriate content. This viewpoint does not align with publisher provided maturity ratings as below: > [...] > Further, the particular age-inappropriate topics being referred to by ban advocates like violent or sexual content are specific to social violence and non-heteronormative sexual topics. Books that heavily feature heterosexual relationships and/or military violence are not being referred to by ban advocates nor are they disproportionally being targeted. I have some sympathy for people who argue that these distinctions are subjective because blurry lines are how we get this type of censorship in the first place. Blurry lines are how we get people getting bolder and bolder about what books to exclude from libraries and curriculum. But that's not a defense of the current bans, if anything it's a warning to be even more careful about subjectively defined categories of censorship. Especially when those categories are so clearly being expanded. I mean, come on, these books are obviously not getting excluded because they're too violent or too mature for kids. Even ban proponents are not arguing that; they're arguing that the books are "revisionist history", or that they're "propaganda", or that they're "unfair." And yeah, that's pretty obviously an ideological ban and it's pretty obviously different from traditionally accepted categories of book bans around pornography and violence. We don't have to pretend that the motivations are a mystery; it is extremely clear why books on Rosa Parks and queer identity are getting banned from schools.
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  Which ideas are so dangerous or offensive that they must be censored because they would permanently "damage" children? I would say K-8 shouldn't have erotic or romance novels, religion, conspiracy theories, violent or racist ideologies. It seems petty and pointless virtue signaling of the very weak to ban books about nontraditional identities and lifestyle choices. Kids probably won't care about them except out of curiosity. No book is going to turn a kid gay just as conversion therapy isn't feasible or humane. At the high school level, don't ban a book unless it provides zero educational value and it falls under one of the categories above. There is educational value in dissecting radical violent ideological manifestos to expose the historical failures. And Fahrenheit 451 should be assigned reading. Students need to be enlightened as to the tricks and devices of how charismatic leaders convinced people to murder one another.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    You seem to be disagreeing but the content of your reply agrees - there exist some books which should be banned from schools. Therefor banning books is not a bad thing in and of itself.
starik36 3y ago
They are not "banned" if I can have Amazon deliver them to my door step.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  don’t be obtuse, are you also going to order them for every kid in public school?
  - gweinberg 3y ago
    It's grossly misleading for the authors to talk about "banned books" without saying what they mean by "banned". In common parlance, "banned" would mean something like "forbidden to be sold". I think in most discussions of "banned" books, they mean something like "books which have faced objections from parents when teachers assigned them to children."
    - GloomyBoots 3y ago
      Exactly. Amazon’s internal list of banned books gives a much more accurate impression of what ideas are suppressed in America than what gets taken off a school library shelf. A recent well-known example being When Harry Became Sally.
    - micromacrofoot 3y ago
      these are schools, which are state institutions, banning books from curriculum — if that's not censorship I don't know what is... what's the point of this pedantry?
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    The only obtuse one is you. Just because, say, “50 Shades of Grey” is not in an elementary school’s library does not make it a banned book, and no sensible person would advocate for that to be there in the first place. A “banned book” connotes censorship, and it is not censorship that a child’s library does not stock every book imaginable. If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. However, if it is available through retailers, how can you call it a “banned book”?
electromech 3y ago
Where does the "1,626" number come from? In their data set they have 2,551 books in four categories: Banned in Libraries and Classrooms, Banned in Libraries, Banned In Classrooms, Banned Pending Investigation, If I filter out the "Banned Pending Legislation" entries, I get 1,164 books.
- electromech 3y ago
  In the BOOKS tab, there are 1,634 unique titles, which gets closer to their number. If that's where the number comes from, they are counting "Banned Pending Investigation" as banned books.
pluto_modadic 3y ago
okay, chart shows: "activism & social themes" 44%, LGBTQ 24%, ... family 16%, etc, with the removal reason only being "mature" in 1.6% of the cases... and leads to the reasoning suggested being: "1) Virtue signal by people in positions of institutional power to voting-age parents interested in school choice, parental rights, and wedge social issues to the detriment of non-voting age students 2) Reject and exclude topics that challenge a perceived status quo from the public discourse (e.g. non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted)" this feels like "I don't understand evolution, and I can't let my kids understand it" from Futurama, but it's about civil rights or the existence of ⓣⓗⓔ ⓖⓐⓨ~
electromech 3y ago
The meaning of "banned" can be misleading. When I looked into previous "banned books" data sets I found that some of the books were moved up an age level (e.g., from elementary school to high school) which is not what people think of when they hear the word "ban." Others were books that sounded religious in nature (e.g., I recall a book from the Christian publisher, "Zondervan") which is understandable for U.S. public schools.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Others were books that sounded religious in nature (e.g., I recall a book from the Christian publisher, "Zondervan") which is understandable for U.S. public schools. Is it understandable? I don't think I'd be alone in saying that I'm pretty uncomfortable with a book being banned from a public elementary school library just because it has a religious angle. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of separation of church and state to say it would require outright excluding religious books from a library.
  - electromech 3y ago
    Maybe "understandable" was the wrong word. I don't mean to make a value judgement one way or another. It's a counter-example to claims like this one from the article: "non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted"
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Banning any book about Rosa Parks comes across as a passive-aggressive declaration of racist white nationalist ideology.
jeisc 3y ago
wake up we are one finger away from living in a post apocalyptic world so anyone and even children need to know as much as possible about the world thus keeping books from anyone is an injustice and even harmful in a adverse living conditions like in the walking dead for example...

16 points by joering2 3y ago

I find it highly subjective how they differentiate between banned and excluded books. They are all books deemed inappropriate for children. The “book ban” terminology suggests books should not be banned. But clearly there exist some books that dont belong in a children’s library.

MarcScott 3y ago
Is "The Life of Rosa Parks" inappropriate for children? Should it not be available in school libraries? Clearly I would agree that Fifty Shades of Grey should probably not be available in a school library. I would debate, given its historical significance, whether Mein Kampf should be included. But a book about the life of Rosa Parks should be mandatory in school libraries. I'm a UK resident, and might not be understanding things correctly. We don't do book banning or excluding over here.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > We don't do book banning or excluding over here. Really? If I wrote a book entitled “The Darwin Option: A retrospective and brutally honest view about why Darwin was right about women,” you wouldn’t protest if it was put in the school library where an edgy 13-year-old could read it?
  - MarcScott 3y ago
    Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? I already stated a book that shouldn't be in school libraries, one that is debatable, and one that should probably be included in libraries. My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      > "Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument?" An Appeal to Extremes is not always inaccurate, nor always a fallacy. > "My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government." And you assume the government doesn't, or would not, put heavy pressure on any school or librarian that would dare have a book by David Duke on the shelves? Whether it be the UK or California? I actually like Florida because they make it clear and explicit instead of unclear and implicit, even if the results are identical but censoring different views. A written law, versus an unwritten rule.
      - MarcScott 3y ago
        First off, thank you for the debate. It's what I come to HN for. Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I find it interesting that parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory. Should the Quran be available in libraries in Wyoming? Should the Bible be available in libraries in Pakistan?
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I don't know about each individual book listed; but I would like to sidestep that and address the fact idea that "parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory." This has always been true, and I believe, always will be true. Even the liberal free world has its limits beyond which you will experience outrage if you speak a certain thought. If Alex Jones wrote a book about Frog Biology, even the most astute "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately shout that has no place in the school. If David Duke wrote a book about understanding the Jewish race, once again, even the most "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately scream that should be purged from the shelves. I think many of the same individuals would be extremely opposed to a hypothetical book written by Trump entitled "Being a Good President and Fulfilling Your Civic Duties." Heck, what about "Andrew Tate's Guide to Being a Cool Dude?" What about "James Damore's guide to Diversity in Action at Google?" There is no disagreement, truly, that some books or ideas are beyond the pale. I think you would admit yourself that you would not want an Alex Jones Biology book to be where a child could find it even if it had no sexually explicit or otherwise harmful content other than the ideas inside of it. If you are opposed to any of my above hypotheticals (David Duke's Guide to Jews), you are admitting that sharing some ideas is harmful and should be stopped, like it or not. The only question is what content and what ideas is considered harmful. And of course, what standards determine what content should not be permitted. Florida has picked their standards - it's traditional religious opposition to LGBTQ+ content. Note that it's not even Christian opposition - There was an incident just last week with Islamic people in Canada burning the Rainbow flag (because there is only one religion on earth that still actively stones gays). They've chosen general religious values, as they generally apply across many religions' teachings. Like it? Don't like it? Don't pretend like either side doesn't have things they don't want to censor. It's what to censor, not whether we censor.
- gillytech 3y ago
  many books are given innocent sounding titles while pushing revisionist historical information or outright racist views. A book about Rosa Parks seems on its face to be a good thing. But if you inspect the contents you may find objectionable and false information, not conducive to the development of children. What if there were 10 Rosa Parks books reviewed and were deemed fine, and that one was filled with false ideological nonsense? I find this article disingenuous.
  - MarcScott 3y ago
    Thank you. I haven't read the book, so I have no idea from which stance it views her life. It very well might be a racist book, and contain false information. Now I am going to have to read it, to make my own judgement.
- electromech 3y ago
  The data set lists the book as "Banned Pending Investigation," and I don't see more info as to why or what that means.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  You misunderstand my point. If some books should be banned then banning books isnt an inherently bad thing. So we should stop saying “they are banning books!” to suggest something wrong is happening. Its a weak argument that should die. We have banned books from children’s libraries for a long time and should continue to do so.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vharuck 3y ago
Then what would count as a book banning in a school? Nobody picks the books at random, there's always a justification. I think if the book is removed against the wishes of the librarian, that's an irregular ban. >But clearly there exist some books that dont belong in a children’s library. The article points out there are "regular" reasons for bannings, and they didn't include those books: "They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or 'mature/17+' topics from being placed on school bookshelves)." Besides, the article then points to the disproportionate number of books removed for (1) "violent content" when it's about political resistances versus military violence, and (2) "sexual topics" when it's about non-heterosexual relationships versus heterosexual. I've never heard of a book removed because it mentions a kid had a mom and a dad. There's obviously a motive besides protecting the children from violent or sexual content.
danShumway 3y ago
> Irregular bans tend to be ideologically driven. They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or “mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves). So that basically boils down to: "Most everyone agrees that mature/17+ content should be excluded and it regularly is. In contrast, irregular bans are for content that is not typically excluded or that falls beyond the lists of categories that would immediately spring to someone's mind when asked what types of content shouldn't be shown to kids." On one hand, yeah, that's a subjective classification. Absolutely. On the other hand, anyone who argues that "I Am Rosa Parks" isn't an irregular ban is not really seriously engaging with that classification. There is a generally understood difference for most reasonable people between pornography and the history of Black activism (regardless of whether or not that portrayal of history is one that everyone likes). And while blurry lines can be really problematic, to argue that censorship of adult/mature material grants carte blanch rights for governments and public school boards to exclude any book from school settings is to basically give up entirely on trying to find any way to protect 1st Amendment rights in lower education. You're really not even going to try to draw a line anywhere? From the article: > We did entertain the viewpoint from ban advocates that the books being banned are largely driven by age-inappropriate content. This viewpoint does not align with publisher provided maturity ratings as below: > [...] > Further, the particular age-inappropriate topics being referred to by ban advocates like violent or sexual content are specific to social violence and non-heteronormative sexual topics. Books that heavily feature heterosexual relationships and/or military violence are not being referred to by ban advocates nor are they disproportionally being targeted. I have some sympathy for people who argue that these distinctions are subjective because blurry lines are how we get this type of censorship in the first place. Blurry lines are how we get people getting bolder and bolder about what books to exclude from libraries and curriculum. But that's not a defense of the current bans, if anything it's a warning to be even more careful about subjectively defined categories of censorship. Especially when those categories are so clearly being expanded. I mean, come on, these books are obviously not getting excluded because they're too violent or too mature for kids. Even ban proponents are not arguing that; they're arguing that the books are "revisionist history", or that they're "propaganda", or that they're "unfair." And yeah, that's pretty obviously an ideological ban and it's pretty obviously different from traditionally accepted categories of book bans around pornography and violence. We don't have to pretend that the motivations are a mystery; it is extremely clear why books on Rosa Parks and queer identity are getting banned from schools.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
Which ideas are so dangerous or offensive that they must be censored because they would permanently "damage" children? I would say K-8 shouldn't have erotic or romance novels, religion, conspiracy theories, violent or racist ideologies. It seems petty and pointless virtue signaling of the very weak to ban books about nontraditional identities and lifestyle choices. Kids probably won't care about them except out of curiosity. No book is going to turn a kid gay just as conversion therapy isn't feasible or humane. At the high school level, don't ban a book unless it provides zero educational value and it falls under one of the categories above. There is educational value in dissecting radical violent ideological manifestos to expose the historical failures. And Fahrenheit 451 should be assigned reading. Students need to be enlightened as to the tricks and devices of how charismatic leaders convinced people to murder one another.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  You seem to be disagreeing but the content of your reply agrees - there exist some books which should be banned from schools. Therefor banning books is not a bad thing in and of itself.

starik36 3y ago

They are not "banned" if I can have Amazon deliver them to my door step.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
don’t be obtuse, are you also going to order them for every kid in public school?
- gweinberg 3y ago
  It's grossly misleading for the authors to talk about "banned books" without saying what they mean by "banned". In common parlance, "banned" would mean something like "forbidden to be sold". I think in most discussions of "banned" books, they mean something like "books which have faced objections from parents when teachers assigned them to children."
  - GloomyBoots 3y ago
    Exactly. Amazon’s internal list of banned books gives a much more accurate impression of what ideas are suppressed in America than what gets taken off a school library shelf. A recent well-known example being When Harry Became Sally.
  - micromacrofoot 3y ago
    these are schools, which are state institutions, banning books from curriculum — if that's not censorship I don't know what is... what's the point of this pedantry?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  The only obtuse one is you. Just because, say, “50 Shades of Grey” is not in an elementary school’s library does not make it a banned book, and no sensible person would advocate for that to be there in the first place. A “banned book” connotes censorship, and it is not censorship that a child’s library does not stock every book imaginable. If the government bans it in some way, then that would be a banned book. However, if it is available through retailers, how can you call it a “banned book”?

electromech 3y ago

Where does the "1,626" number come from? In their data set they have 2,551 books in four categories: Banned in Libraries and Classrooms, Banned in Libraries, Banned In Classrooms, Banned Pending Investigation, If I filter out the "Banned Pending Legislation" entries, I get 1,164 books.

electromech 3y ago
In the BOOKS tab, there are 1,634 unique titles, which gets closer to their number. If that's where the number comes from, they are counting "Banned Pending Investigation" as banned books.

pluto_modadic 3y ago

okay, chart shows: "activism & social themes" 44%, LGBTQ 24%, ... family 16%, etc, with the removal reason only being "mature" in 1.6% of the cases... and leads to the reasoning suggested being: "1) Virtue signal by people in positions of institutional power to voting-age parents interested in school choice, parental rights, and wedge social issues to the detriment of non-voting age students 2) Reject and exclude topics that challenge a perceived status quo from the public discourse (e.g. non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted)" this feels like "I don't understand evolution, and I can't let my kids understand it" from Futurama, but it's about civil rights or the existence of ⓣⓗⓔ ⓖⓐⓨ~

electromech 3y ago

The meaning of "banned" can be misleading. When I looked into previous "banned books" data sets I found that some of the books were moved up an age level (e.g., from elementary school to high school) which is not what people think of when they hear the word "ban." Others were books that sounded religious in nature (e.g., I recall a book from the Christian publisher, "Zondervan") which is understandable for U.S. public schools.

danShumway 3y ago
> Others were books that sounded religious in nature (e.g., I recall a book from the Christian publisher, "Zondervan") which is understandable for U.S. public schools. Is it understandable? I don't think I'd be alone in saying that I'm pretty uncomfortable with a book being banned from a public elementary school library just because it has a religious angle. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation of separation of church and state to say it would require outright excluding religious books from a library.
- electromech 3y ago
  Maybe "understandable" was the wrong word. I don't mean to make a value judgement one way or another. It's a counter-example to claims like this one from the article: "non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted"

sacnoradhq 3y ago

Banning any book about Rosa Parks comes across as a passive-aggressive declaration of racist white nationalist ideology.

jeisc 3y ago

wake up we are one finger away from living in a post apocalyptic world so anyone and even children need to know as much as possible about the world thus keeping books from anyone is an injustice and even harmful in a adverse living conditions like in the walking dead for example...