Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

On Thu, 29 May 2025 10:01:28 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

On 25/05/2025 03:52, Mike Van Pelt wrote:

In article <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

So some of the "top 100" seem to be (1) not
actually banned, or (2) not the most popular.

 
I still want to see a "Banned Book" list that is *books*
*that* *are* *actually* *banned*, as in not permitted to
be printed or sold.
 
This "A grammar school librarian determines that this book
inappropriate for a grammar school library", or even
"One parent complained about this book, and their complaint
was reviewed and filed appropriately" is a pretty weak sauce
definition of "banned".

>
I think that being seized and publicly burned
should meet a reasonable condition of "banned",
and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.
As for the year 2025, watch this space.

And Beatles records. And <African-American> music performed by white
persons (Elvis). Also Korans. But there is a long tradition of this
nonsense in some Christian [1] traditions. But they weren't /all/
burned and so were not banned because they were still available for
purchase.

[1] Keep in mind that, in the USA, since we have freedom of religion,
anyone who wants to can identify as "Christian" without regard to what
they do or believe.

Now, /some/ books seized by Customs/Post Office and burned or
otherwise disposed of may fairly be said to have been "banned" if all
the copies were so treated so that none could be found in the USA.

But I do want to thank you for joining the war on semantic goo.
Because that is what this is: the extension of "ban" to other meanings
to the point where the actual meaning is lost.

Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"