Banned books put a limit on literary education

Fang-Face says:

Re:I agree except…

. . .most banned books are sujbect to a rather hypocritical process . . .

Yes, but you’ve got to keep in mind that: There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. The most egregiously stupid piece of censorship was the Taliban outlawing paper bags as offensive to Islam. I’ve seen some rather stupid rationales for demanding the removal of books. And, of course, no censor is going to demand the removal of books of which he approves no matter what the content; so the Bible is not going to be challenged for its violence and hatemongering and age inappropriate themes when Judy Blumes’s books are being raked over the coals.

In case no one has noticed, the very first word is “Congress”.

Yes, and there are censorial movements which like to point out that, that means only congresscritters and senators are forbidden from banning books, but everybody else is allowed to. However, since about 1928 the U.S. Supreme Court has been increasingly defining the word to mean any official, whether elected, appointed, or employed, at any level of government. Which means everybody from the Dog Catcher to the President.

As for parental authority, that extends only to our own children. Too many parents go beyond that and usurp authority over the minds and education of other people’s children by deciding that no child should be allowed to read whatever it is those parents are frightened of.

. . . I would be more than willing to be corrected and to apologize for my ignorance.

There is no need to apologize for ignorance so long as you are willing to divest yourself of your ignorance. It is those who are willfully ignorant who need to apologize.