It's not a lie. Some entity somewhere banned them. It's vague, not inaccurate.

You're just pissy because they aren't using your personal favorite parameters around "banned" for "by whom" and "for whom". You're pretending your opinion is fact and therefore anyone who disagrees must be a liar.

I'm curious of your take on one thing. Many of the sexuality oriented books (which your list is overwhelmingly composed of) tend to, unsurprisingly, have sexual content which is often rather explicit. Some of these books even have explicit artwork within them. I'm sure you'd agree that if books had ratings then many/all of these books would R, if not NC17, rated.

And even in high schools screening R-rated movies is generally heavily restricted. Where it is allowed, it generally requires a permission slip from the parents. And that's not like showing gratuitous films, but ones with historically relevant and educational context like e.g. Schindler's List.

So why is it unreasonable for parents (or other interested parties) to be against having such material in a children's library? In many ways its quite odd that a rating system was never adopted for books. And for one other question, do you even see a difference between these sort of books being restricted from schools, and other books whose content would be generally be rated appropriate for children, being banned on political/ideological basis? Because to me the difference is not only tremendous but the defining issue here.

"Formerly banned books" would be more accurate.

We no longer say that "cannabis is illegal in California"; that would be factually incorrect. Instead we say, "cannabis was formerly illegal". In standard usage of English, the same pattern applies to banned vs formerly banned books.

Edit: wording

> It's not a lie.

It deliberately conveys an impression that is opposite of the truth. But feel free to continue to split hairs and twist words to argue that technically you're not actually lying.