Banned Book Week

I know I'm a week late for this, but it's only been recently that I've been reading the posts and discussion regarding banned books...
It's interesting (and aggravating) to read the comments especially, because that's where the real arguing comes in. Two main points seemed to come up a lot:
1. That parents should have control over what their children read.
2. That these people paid taxes for the library, and therefore should have an input in what books were there.
Can anyone already see the flaws in these arguments?
1. It's often repeated by those who are opposed to banning: yes, you have a right to limit what your child reads. But when you ban books, you're putting a limit on what other children can read; the library is not specifically your child's. And to those who say, well the child can get the book from a bookstore or Amazon, well, what happens when the child can't afford to buy the book?
2. There was one person in particular who was toting this argument; what he didn't seem to understand from all the various rebuttals was that he wasn't the only tax-payer; that everyone else who paid taxes also had an input, and why should his opinion be the most important?

I don't know; maybe right now I'm preaching to the choir. But it's worth it to talk about right? That was another point brought up: that many times censorship just goes unnoticed...that a complaint is lodged, and the book is just taken off the shelves, with no one the wiser. And what else is Banned Books Week for than raising awareness?

You can see what books have been challenged in our area here (they are four in Minnesota I believe).

Books read this school year: 4
Books currently reading: 9
Times I've been called Tavi by the dive coach: 9