Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 10:01:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <10197p8$3pm7g$2@dont-email.me>
References: <03gqqj562r4vi0kpi2vl8flsi59jsbot56@4ax.com>
 <volvhp$34acl$1@dont-email.me> <100r948$bvlu$1@dont-email.me>
 <100u0ld$15sv8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 11:01:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0875b670284319d386155a376208cf58";
	logging-data="3987696"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Z0IwSoQWFPG6kb12dgaQvt+tef0WZG/o="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WPnxixPrdLhPu0RfHgTar9P2OTk=
In-Reply-To: <100u0ld$15sv8$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2104

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.

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