Strike the Banned?

I'm a believer in a free press. I'm a believer that, aside from a narrow range of circumstances such as a demonstrable security issue or definite likelihood of damage or injury, government at national, state and local levels has absolutely no business in limiting adults' access to printed material. While I also believe that parents should have the right to request an alternative title for a school assignment if the book the school chose colors outside their lines, I think that a better choice is talking out the problem issues with the child.

All that being said, I'm grateful for Ruth Graham's Slate piece arguing that "Banned Books Week" suffers from an overly broad definition of "banned." The reality is that even a book taken out of circulation from the public library or removed from student access for whatever reason isn't truly "banned." Copies still exist and can be bought, even if for a very dear price.

Censorship is a serious matter, but when an anticensorship group has as one of its slogans, "I read banned books," it's demonstrating it should read some of its own material more closely. If the books are available to be read and you can announce that openly, then it seems to me hard to call them "banned."