Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Censorship Announcements United States

Top Banned Books of 2003 1033

michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003. Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top Banned Books of 2003

Comments Filter:
  • 2003? Recent? (Score:5, Informative)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:45PM (#10096582)
    The title actual is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
  • Why Harry? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigHungryJoe ( 737554 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:45PM (#10096588) Homepage
    Is the objection to Harry Potter that it depicts magic? I don't get it. C.S. Lewis had magic in his books, and Christians love him. What is the difference?
    • Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr. Arbusto ( 300950 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `kcuhcemirpeht'> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:50PM (#10096621) Journal
      I don't get The Giver being banned either. It was REQUIRED reading when I was in middle school, and then again in High School.

      Why would it be banned? Depicts socialism and controled death?
      • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drudd ( 43032 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:27PM (#10096939)
        At the end of my senior english class in high school, the professor passed around a similar list of top 10 most frequently banned books.

        More than half of them were on our reading lists, either in that class, or in previous english classes.

        I think anything worth reading has probably been banned by someone, somewhere, since almost by definition it has interesting ideas which must offend/annoy/worry someone.

        • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:43PM (#10097505)
          Reminds me of Kino no Tabi (Kino's Travels) []. In one episode, Kino travels to the Land of the Books. They value books very high and in exchange for one book you may lend one from their Great Library.
          Finally, reaching the library of the country, Kino looks for an interesting book. The library of the country, which prides itself in books, however has only two rooms of books, and not a single interesting one.

          They only have books in the library, which are officially aproved because they don't unsettle someone.

          I've learned English as a foreign language, and in my last year at school, we read "Catcher in the Rye", "Brave New World", "Lord of the Flies".
          Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.
          • Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Informative)

            by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:26PM (#10098189) Homepage
            Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.

            It would be disturbing if that were what this list is, but it isn't. It's actually a list of books that people are trying to ban, not a list of the ones they've succeeded in banning, and part of the way that a book gets onto the list is by being so widely used that there are many opportunities to challenge it. It's also important to remember that the list is based on fewer than 7000 challenges over a 10 year span, so a book can make the top 100 if it was challenged fewer than 10 times per year in the whole country.

    • Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wired_parrot ( 768394 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:53PM (#10096653)

      The difference is in the number of copies published. J.K. Rowling has achieved a phenomenom that C.S. Lewis could not even dream of. With fame comes greater scrutiny. I'm sure there's hundreds of books depicting magic and paganism and ways more objectionable to religious fundamentalists, but none of them achieved the level of book sales that Harry Potter did.

    • Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 6800 ( 643075 )
      I probably should not try to answer your question since I haven't read Potter and only have second hand knowledge. However I will give it a shot. In C.S.Lewis work, for example, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe", the lion is patterned after Jesus Christ and the story lines emphasise that which is generally accepted as good while the witch and witchery is depicted as both bad and weaker in the end. Thus the work is 'uplifting' Witchery, on the other hand, in Harry Potter is presented (so I unders
      • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by LarsWestergren ( 9033 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:14PM (#10096839) Homepage Journal
        When I read the CS Lewis books as a kid, I loved them all up to the last one (don't remember the name of it). I was six or seven, but even at that age I reacted against the judgemental mean-spiritedness of it. Here the preceding books had showed the endless fatherly love of the Lion, and here he let the world end, and a huge number of living beings die. If I remember correctly, all living beings passed by him, and those who passed into his shadow faded away forever.

        When I got older, I read that it was basically the End of Days/Second coming of Christ, for kids. The two evil and foolish characters the Monkey and the Donkey represented scientists (evolution, get it?) and disbelievers. This didn't make me like the book any better.
      • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by UnrepentantHarlequin ( 766870 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @05:06PM (#10098457)
        The irony of this whole thing reminds me of something I said long ago to a fundamentalist who was giving me a rough time about playing D&D:

        We play games about monsters and magic. You think it's all real. Now which one of us has the problems with reality, again?

        She didn't have much to say after that.
    • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Robotech_Master ( 14247 ) * on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:14PM (#10097286) Homepage Journal
      You might want to check out KidSpeak [], formerly "Muggles For Harry Potter." It was created specifically to deal with schools banning Harry Potter, and then broadened its mission to include all free-speech and censorship issues concerning children.
    • Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SEE ( 7681 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:39PM (#10097480) Homepage
      The difference?

      Magic is never used by good mortals in C.S. Lewis's books, except in the case of Merlin in That Hideous Strength -- and even there, Merlin's use of magic is depicted as something that placed his soul in jeopardy, only to be saved when he turns himself over to angelic beings as a vessel for their power.

      Certainly, specific items of power are used by good mortals, when given to them as a gift, while Aslan sometimes uses poer directly. The analogy is miraculous gifts and Divine intervention.

      Now, let's look at Harry Potter and his friends. Is their approach more like the Holy Spirit descending on the Apostles and granting them the power to heal, or Simon the Magician asking to be taught how to perform those miracles? Like being handed a healing cordial by Santa Claus, or by studying to learn the Deplorable Word? Like being given an apple of life by Aslan, or like carefully separating and purifying magic dust to create rings to travel by? Like letting an angel posess you and work through you, or learning the secrets of making things obey your will?
    • by devphil ( 51341 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:20PM (#10098141) Homepage the completely consequences-free environment known as Hogwart's.

      I live in a fairly conservative area. Many, many families I know are strict Christians (Protestant, Catholic, across the board), and the ones that have read Harry Potter nearly all love it.

      Once you actually read the books, it becomes fairly clear that the magic is just there as a gimmick. The author needed a British public school setting, but that's been done to death, so she made one with a slightly different curriculum.

      The "nearly" part above... a number of people were bothered, not by the "witchcraft" but by the fact that in the first couple of books, Harry can do no wrong. Rules are bent or overlooked, everything is forgiven or ignored once it's all over, he makes bad decisions and doesn't discover -- via consequences, like the rest of us did -- that they were bad.

      The later books definitely change that (people get injured, killed, etc, as a result of Harry's screwups).

  • banning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:46PM (#10096593)
    I used to think my high school literature teacher was the coolest person in the world. (Oh, and she was HOT!) Obviously a previous bra-burning flower girl...

    Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.

    What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.

    • Re:banning (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:58PM (#10096690)
      Lot better than in the UK, the national criculum has seen to that, all schools no matter where they are or who there teaching, teach the same stuff, so we all read Of Mice and Men, and we all do Macbeth in drama, we all study X in science...

      It does mean everyone gets an equal footing, and the bad teachers don't slack off and just not teach anything but it does get increadably boring after reading the 40th poem of the NEAB Anthology.
    • Re:banning (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ejaw5 ( 570071 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:06PM (#10096772)
      Although she probably should have stood up for principles, its a different story when you have a family to feed, house and car to pay off, etc etc. Its the same deal when my HS AP English teacher came under fire for teaching Ginsberg's "Howl" poem. He certainly gave some resistance, but he did say utimately there's a balance between being 'right' and appeasing superiors.
    • Re:banning (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ThousandStars ( 556222 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:32PM (#10096981) Homepage
      What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.

      People pick their battles: they cannot fight all negative things in the world all the time. Maybe she quit teaching Brave New World and substituted some kind of different dystopian future novel, or some other work critical of the society in which we live.

      It's also possible the curriculum changed, or that some other event occured of which you are not aware. To say that you lost all respect for ceasing to teach a particular novel seems unfair.

      Perhaps you have not shared the whole story, and if that is the case then I apoligize for the above.

    • Re:banning (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JamesKPolk ( 13313 )
      Did you volunteer to pay her rent when she got fired, or feed her kids?
    • Re:banning (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Java Ape ( 528857 ) <> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:04PM (#10098861) Homepage
      Sadly, the life a teacher is not all roses. Many years ago, before I became a nerd, I took a job as a school teacher. My parents were both teachers, and I thought it a nobel and proud profession, despite the long hours and low pay.

      I was trying to support a wife and three children on a teacher's salary, and had the sword of student debt suspended over my head. Some weeks after accepting the job, and moving to a new town, the principal called me in, and told me I would be teaching evolution and sex education. I was told that I was required to follow the district curriculum in these areas, and any deviatiation from the party line would be considered grounds for immediate dismissal. With a sinking feeling, I asked what the official curriculum would be. As expected it was a watered-down, "don't offend anyone, for any reason" curriculum with completely ignored all scientific evidence in favor of feel-good pablum and politically-correct platitudes.

      I told the principal that this curriculum was laughable, I might as well teach Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Not an eyelash blinked. Dead serious "Mr. Briggs, you are apparently under the impression that the science curriculum is as important as the socalization of our students. Your job is to assist the school is producing good citizens, subject area mastery is a secondary and far lesser consideration".

      That was Pasco, WA 1994. I desperately needed the job. I swallowed my principles, and taught what I was told, knowing that the principal was using the classroom speaker system to monitor the content of my teaching. I left the teaching field that year, and have never gone back - there is no honor to be gained on that battlefield.

      The teacher's can't fight, and have no hope of winning -- those who would fight are dismissed, those who remain offer up their intellecutal integrity upon the alter of polical correctness, in order to avoid legal entanglements for the administration.

  • Good U Penn Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Geiger581 ( 471105 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:49PM (#10096611)
    here [].

    Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.
  • by a5cii ( 620929 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:50PM (#10096617) Homepage
    Harry Potter - encourages children to take drugs, mainly pot

    Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking

    and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty
  • People are stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CFBMoo1 ( 157453 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:52PM (#10096639) Homepage
    No question after seeing the list and finding these.

    5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

    56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl

    88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford

    96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell

    That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.
    • by canadian_right ( 410687 ) <> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:43PM (#10097055) Homepage
      I don't think you quite get "freedom of speech" if those are the only books that "really shouldn't be banned". NO BOOK should be banned for holding an unpopular opinion. Libel laws should handle most damaging factual errors in published works, but I don't think any fiction should be banned. Sure, not all books should be read by elementary school students, but that doesn't justify banning the book.
  • by Phanatic1a ( 413374 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:55PM (#10096666)
    See, I think that a more important list of which books were banned would be a list of which public institutions did the banning. If there are provincial, backwards-minded, insular communities out there banning books, I'm more interested in knowing where they are than what they're banning.
  • Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:5, Interesting)

    by u-238 ( 515248 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:55PM (#10096673) Homepage
    There are much more serious and interesting instences of banning, like the actual 1995 book burnings of Germar Rudolph's published findings (a German chemist who found evidence showing no signs of Zyklon-B use in Auschwitz other than in delousing chambers). Extreme or not, his publications were literally burned...

    And another similar instance [] wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.
  • A Wrinkle in Time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Citizen_Kang ( 35179 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:56PM (#10096680)
    A Wrinkle in Time is apparently banned because it contains magic and "new age" nonsense. ( ml []). Oddly enough, Madeline L'Engle was openly Christian, known to run with other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. It boggles the mind.
  • by bushboy ( 112290 ) <> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:56PM (#10096681) Homepage
    Slashdot encourages normally quiet and law abiding Geeks to question authority !

    Ban teh Slashdot now !
  • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @12:57PM (#10096686) Homepage Journal
    Out of curiosity what gets banned overseas? I would figure most NAZI related material isn't permitted in France, Germany, or similar countries.

    • by Star_Gazer ( 25473 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:17PM (#10096864)
      Yes, here in Germany you basically only get into trouble with old Nazi literature ("Mein Kampf" from Hitler comes to mind) or when you glorify the time or deny the crimes happened during '33-'45. Related to that, books can be banned (only from courts!!!) when they are "hate inspiring", call for some kind of nondemocratic/nonfree society or don't respect the honor of living persons (or persons that are not so long dead).

      Nevertheless, even if it is no ban, you are not allowed to make works available to children that are rated as unsuitable for them. This is true for all kind of media, from books to movies, music or computer games. Except when it comes to violence in computer games, this ratings usually make sense (you don't want your kids to see a porn movie, do you?), but it can be quite a hassle nevertheless, because you can't just deliver them with standard mail, you are not allowed to do any advertisement that kids could see and so on.

      Bottom line is: If someone here would call for a ban on works like Huck Finn, Harry Potter or "The Catcher in the Rye" he woud get laughed at from 95% of the society, but 50-70% would agree to a ban on Doom3....
  • Guttenberg links (Score:3, Interesting)

    by j1m+5n0w ( 749199 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:09PM (#10096804) Homepage Journal

    Anyone see any more on that list that are public domain?


  • by angst_ridden_hipster ( 23104 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:42PM (#10097048) Homepage Journal
    This is one that always confounded me.

    Books that deal with issues of race are often banned by people who object to racism. I sometimes think it's because they haven't actually read the books, but have merely done the kind of sanctimonious counting of "offensive" terms or situations (e.g., like the CAP Alerts []. Or anybody remember that lady who talked to the Meese commission, and enumerated the number of times the word "horny" was used in Catcher in the Rye?). You could argue this for several of the books:

    Huck Finn was clearly written with an anti-racist agenda, but was written ironically, from the perspective of an ignorant kid. It contains the word "nigger" many, many times. As a result of these two factors, it's considered by some as inappropriate for children.

    To Kill A Mockingbird deals with a rape trial, and therefore could be considered inappropriate for kids. It also contains a lot of racial slurs and violence.

    I think what's underlying the attacks on these books, though, is less these characteristics (which are usually the nominal reasons for banning them), but the anti-authority themes running through the books. They question the conventional morality of the times they describe. People who don't like that kind of thinking may find that mroe offensive than all of the ostensible faults of the books. They don't wnat to encourage this kind of questioning (of course, they're way too late to try to stop it now.)

    You can see a similar effect, by the way, against some of the best anti-authoritarian books like Animal Farm ("it makes kids think animals can talk!"), Brave New World ("but it mentions sex!"), Slaugherhouse Five ("it's filthy!"), and so forth.
  • Judy Blume? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by puzzled ( 12525 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:44PM (#10097064) Journal
    I read a Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle a million years ago and I forget the details. I've read all of the Harry Potter stuff, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye, Flowers For Algernon, S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, the
    Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.

    The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
    redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.

    I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
    understand ... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.

    Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?
    • by SlashdotLemming ( 640272 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:53PM (#10097573)
      Only here can a question with no answer be modded informative ;)
    • Re:Judy Blume? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mmmmmhotpants ( 800341 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:04PM (#10097639)
      I'm a male and I actually read "Are you there God, its me Margaret" when I was 10 or 11 (in my defense, it belonged to my sister and was just lying around). Its about a girl going through this new time in her life with new friends and waiting for her menstrual period and trying to get boys to notice her. The girls do things like open Playboy and say how they want to look like playmates, watch each other change to see how much they've developed. I remember also reading "And then again maybe I won't" which has on the cover a boy looking out the window with binoculars...spying on the hot girl that lives next door.
      Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.
  • Page Source (Score:3, Informative)

    by shubert1966 ( 739403 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:49PM (#10097100) Journal
    These classics are almost REQUIRED reading:

    03. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
    05. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
    06. Of Mice and Men
    13. The Catcher in the Rye
    22. A Wrinkle in Time
    41. To Kill a Mockingbird
    69. Slaughterhouse-Five
    70. Lord of the Flies
    84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

    There is some dissent however, in the source code of the page the first 22 books are marked-up as <strong>, while the last 78 are just <b>.

    Maybe their proofreading department is flawed.
  • by Kurt Granroth ( 9052 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:50PM (#10097112)
    I love lists like this as they remind me of long forgotten books that I really enjoyed growing up. "How To Eat Fried Worms" was the funniest book in existence when I was 9. At one time, the most powerful book I had read was "Bridge to Terabithia". "Lord of the Flies" entranced me in Jr High. Those, and books like them, were all ones that really had an impact on me at a particular age but were ones that I have since forgotten.

    This don't think it's odd that a list of banned books would have a lot of very good books one them. Good books tend to be more challenging to the reader and it's exactly those challenging parts that certain people object to. To those people, if it's not the same old pablum, then they don't want anything to do with it.

    Still, there are some books on the list that are decidedly NOT great or even good books. "Sex", by Madonna. "The New Joy of Gay Sex". I'll have to admit that I can definitely see why somebody would try to get them banned from a public library. After all, you don't see Hustler magazine next to the New York Times at public libraries so why should you expect to find "Sex"? But on the flip side to that, they ARE books and as such, were I at a public library, I would fight any attempt to ban them.

    And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info:
    1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me.
    2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place?
  • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm@[ ] ['ice' in gap]> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @01:55PM (#10097144)
    highschool are on this list...

    6. Of Mice and Men
    41. To Kill a Mockingbird
    47. Flowers for Algernon
    70. Lord of the Flies

    All required reading in my highschool english classes.
  • by I-R-Baboon ( 140733 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:08PM (#10097245)
    The burning of books has long been a sign of an oppressive regime flexing it's muscles of propaganda to strike down things that counter their essence. From early Chinese emperors burning scrolls and burying the scholars alive to erradicate knowledge up to the Nazis burning books and sending off their undesirables to death camps. While some have been successful in their campaign to destroy knowledge and hide it, for the most part it is an exercise in futility. Reasons for burning books are typically to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses, reasons for banning books are to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses. In the age of the Internet this is a shallow useless act that only shows a repressive nature of somebody or some group.

    Some books are banned because they showcase the shame of America, like Huckleberry Finn with the word nigger being used correctly in context as it was for the time the story was wrote in. Does banning this book for printing the word nigger as it was used make bigotry and racism go away, change history and the fact that it was used, miracle away American hypocrisy of liberty and justice for all except slaves? By not learning the truth and being exposed to facts we erradicate the lessons we should have learned. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you have such a serious problem with a book, close the cover and get rid of it. If you are such a failure as a parent you don't want little George reading a book because you don't have the time to invest in your child, don't get them the book. If they have book because they do not want to follow in your silhouette, take it from them or find somebody to be the parent you are not. Nobody is making you read them, why force others down to your level of illiteracy.

    Putting a book on a banlist is a quick way to get my attention, and usually much more reliable for a good read than the bestseller listings. Celebrate the banned book list, check them off as you read each one.

    No book should be banned, censorship spawns ignorance.

  • by bokmann ( 323771 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:24PM (#10097345) Homepage
    I find it facinating that "Daddy's Roommate" is #2 on that list, while "Heather Has Two Mommies" is #11. Does this show that our culture is a little more accepting of a lesbian lifesytle?

    Too bad that list isn't a click-through to Amazon to buy those books. I bet they could be raising a little bit of money from that website to combat censorship.
  • Newer list (2003) (Score:5, Informative)

    by cavebear42 ( 734821 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:44PM (#10097888)
    The article should have cited the 2003 list:

    The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:

    1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
    2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
    3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
    4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
    5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
    6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
    7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
    8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
    9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
    10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.

    Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"