# data[].attributes.body
This book was banned mainly from the use of profanity, references to drug usage, and depictions of police violence. Some claimed it promoted an anti-police message and was inappropriate for the students.

# data[].attributes.body
The novel follows a 16-year old black girl who lives in a poor black neighborhood while also attending a mainly white suburban prep school. When she sees her childhood friend get shot by a police officer, the aftermath forces her to straddle up her two worlds and speak on the matter. This book has been challenged in multiple states because it speaks on themes like racial injustice,police violence, profanity, and many other controversial topics. Some students and teachers claim that the book gives a voice to the marginalized youth by opening a discussion on race and identity. However, on the other hand some administrators,parents, police-union representatives object that it contains too much sexual content or that it has too much of an alleged bias. This caused the book to be banned in some districts and flagged in others after review.

# data[].attributes.body
Some of the main arguments that were made was about the usage of profanity, sexual references, violence, and political content. The people who challenged it often argued that the material was "unsuitable for children", or "too explicit". On the other though, the defenders argue that the book provides important and critical perspectives on real-lived experience of race and identity, that representation matters, and they think that removing the book silences those that are under-represented. There were middle ground positions with the book not being fully banned altogether, and instead moving it to higher grades or requiring parental permission, with the outcome depending on the district or state.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I don't know why these issues arose. On a surface-level the book's explicit language, sexual references, and depiction of police violence raised some concerns for parents and administrators about age-appropriateness. However, when you look on it at a deeper level, the book addresses racial justice, critiques policing, has a black teenagers perspective— which challenges the usual dominant narratives or discomfort in some communities when it comes to discussing race or power. Regarding the First Amendment the objections triggered formal challenges which test how schools/libraries handle rights of access vs local control. The fact that the book was placed under “review” or removed shows how local policy and governance matters, and how censorship debates often hinge on procedural points and on larger debates about whose voices are allowed in school curricula and libraries.

# data[].attributes.body
The book was banned due to the sexually explicit illustrations and LGBTQ+ themes. Children's parents labeled it as a pornographic and deemed it unsuitable for school libraries.

# data[].attributes.body
The graphic memoir made by Maia Kobabe is a book all about going on a journey to embrace non-binary and asexual identity. This book has quite consistently been a challenged book in the recent years: for example it was ranked as the most challenged book in the U.S in multiple years by the American Library Association and has been banned or restricted in multiple jurisdictions. Some communities included districts in states like Florida or Tennessee where parents and political groups commented on the books sexual contents, age-appropriateness, and "pornography". Therefore the book in some districts was removed or the access was restricted while in other communities after review, it was retained.

# data[].attributes.body
In my view, the defenders are more right in this situation. This novel gives a voice to experiences that many students might never see in their lifetime, and allows for a discussion of real-world issues. While the concerns about it being age-appropriate aren't trivial the solution shouldn't be about getting it removed, but rather placed in the proper place. The challengers fear's are understandable, but if they get rid of this they risk silencing marginalized perspectives. With that said I think that parents/schools should engage in discussions to determine what grades a book should be for.

# data[].attributes.body
The main reason for banning the book was due to the sexually explicit content and that it was inappropriate for that age group. The main arguments that defend the book is that representation matters and how students should have access to diverse voices because it's a real lived experience. There was somewhat of a middle ground with some districts opting to keep the book, but just moving it to higher grades rather than just outright banning it.The approaches differ by community: some adopted immediate removal, others followed review committees, some faced lawsuits.

# data[].attributes.body
This memoir addressed non-binary and asexual identity , which is still way different compared to the more mainstream education narratives therefore provoking discomfort in some communities. The fact that it is a graphic novel with drawings of sexual content further amplifies challenges concerns on whether or not it is age-appropriate. Some objections mainly seem to stem from protecting minors from what some see as being explicit content. Others, arguably, reflect discomfort with or opposition to queer identity or visibility in schools/libraries — i.e., ideological concerns rather than purely “child‑safety.” Challenges to the book bring about questions on whether or not libraries/schools should provide access to all viewpoints or whether some of those viewpoints should be restricted regarding the First Amendment. Because the book is adapted for young adults, the tension emerges between “student right to read” and “parent/teacher authority.”

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, I think the defenders of this memoir are in the right. This memoir offers a voice to the non-binary and asexual youth who has few literary mirror. To have access to that representation is very critical to help individuals find their sense of student identity and well-being. Having sexual content doesn't necessarily justify having it removed, but rather having an age guidance, appropriate context, and optional access could be a better solution.Challengers have a responsibility to engage with the content and the context rather than generalize it as “pornography.” That said, I also think schools/parents should work collaboratively: while I do not support outright bans, I do think transparent policies around library/purchase review, grade‐level placement, and parental communication are appropriate.