Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

On 29/05/2025 9:01 p.m., Robert Carnegie 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",

 No, it doesn't. Banning is not merely hating or destroying. It's an institutional act, by a government, church, school board or whatever, decreeing that the book may not be sold/printed/possessed or whatever, by persons within that institution's jurisdiction.
 

and that happened in the U.S. to Harry Potter.

 Couple of times in the US (within this century), and once in Poland, judging by a quick search.

As for the year 2025, watch this space.
>
Textbooks for anarchism, terrorism, and
trade unionism also are dangerous to be
seen with.

 Around where you live, you mean?