Can We All Agree Banning Books Is Ridiculous?

Earlier this week, the ALA updated it's banned books list. Before I give you the break down (the entire list from 2001-2012 is in the link), may I just say how much I hate the idea of banning books? Okay. This is a whole can of worms best left un-opened for me. It's just so unnecessarily aggressive. Avoid books covering topics you know will trigger you. We don't all have to love the same things, but you don't have to ruin them for everyone else. You don't have to take a vendetta out against, I'll say it again and again, a heap of paper and ink or ideas. And yeah, we've all read books we expected to love, but found that we HATED them (I'm looking at you, House of Leaves). But would I burn every copy I found of that book? .... okay, I probably would. (I really, really, really hated that book. I know it has a lot of fans, so whenever people bring it up I just leave the room. I haven't actually set it ablaze. Though I may yet.)
Anyway. I digress. I've noticed that this list, and many others from the previous years, have a majority of YA books and children's books. I understand a parent's right to restrict what their children are exposed to, but I really feel that something like this is sending children the wrong message. It's not just that kids are exposed to violence and sexuality literally everywhere, though most notably on TV anyway, so why does reading about it make it any worse? It's because every parent I know and have ever met wants their kids to like reading books. The message you could be sending children is that "books that describe violence and sex are worse than watching it outright on TV." But the books that make these lists? SERIOUSLY. Their only crimes are that they're popular. There is literally nothing offensive about them - especially if you hold them up to the shit your kids are watching with you on TV.

I've gone on too long. I knew that would happen. Follow the cut to see the list.