5 Books Banned For Stupid Reasons

So, for legit reasons or not, yesterday's post dealt with the current spate of banned books. Should they be banned? I'm of the Libertarian persuasion (not to be confused with a Persian cat or a Libyan) and think people should be allowed to decide to read what they want to . . . or don't want to. But not everyone is of the same mindset. Some books have been banned for some wingdinger reasons.

BANNED: Charlotte's Web by E.B. White
STUPID REASON: In 2006, some parents in a Kansas school district decided that talking animals are blasphemous and unnatural; passages about the spider dying were also criticized as being ‘inappropriate subject matter for a children’s book.’

BANNED: Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak
STUPID REASON: A boy throwing a tantrum was considered dangerous behavior and Sendak was accused of glorifying Max’s anger, prompting psychologists to condemn it as ‘too dark and frightening.’ In a March, 1969 column for Ladies’ Home Journal, child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim called the book psychologically damaging for 3- and 4-year-olds.

BANNED: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
STUPID REASON: It has been challenged on sexual grounds, and has been called ‘pornographic’ and ‘obscene’. It should be noted, however, that there are no sex scenes at all in the book, and no sexual language.

BANNED: A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
STUPID REASON: In 1985, challengers at Cunningham Elementary School in Beloit, Wisconsin, said that A Light in the Attic ‘encourages children to break dishes so they won’t have to dry them.’

BANNED: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
STUPID REASON: Challenged in the Vernon Verona Sherill, NY, School District (1980) as a ‘filthy, trashy novel.’ Also banned from the Lindale, TX, advanced placement English reading list (1996) because the book ‘conflicted with the values of the community.’