they've already semi-reversed it: it stays in libraries and classrooms, but isn't taught to 7th graders. Bet it's the drinking, smoking and fooling around that was the objection.
Now we know why all the wingnuts are so terrified of Sharia law - they're scared people will find out it's basically identical to their own wish list of what to ban.
Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas, must be at the forefront against the ban, since singling out individual books and the first amendment and blah, blah, blah were such a big part of his argument for
automated weapons and peoples rights.
@3 - It seems fair to refer to books as "banned" if they were specifically removed from existing course study. I doubt that is true of the vast majority of books.
I like the exception for AP classes - "the smart kids can handle it, but keep it away from the proles." Because the AP kids didn't get smart from, y'know, reading challenging and tough work, right?
There aren't scenes of torture, but she does talk (in a very round-about way) about the fact one of her parents' friends' daughters was raped before she was killed by the government. She also discusses sex and smoking, though the sex isn't shown in the graphics.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local…
automated weapons and peoples rights.
Not including a book in teaching curriculum ≠banned.
This does make me want to watch this though a little more.
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130315/…