Nobody has banned the older ones. The owner of them just wishes not to sell them, which the free market totally allows for.

The publisher and IP owner I understand. I don’t understand the used book market eBay and Amazon taking them off the real and virtual shelves.

> I do have a problem if they ban the older editions.

I don't see how they are "banned". Banning means "forbidden, disallowed, illegal". The older editions do not fall under any of the definitions. They are harder to get, because the author stopped selling them. You can still find them somewhere, and if you already have them you can keep them, they are just less convenient to acquire than they used to be.

Banned books of the week were also not banned. They actually often remained in print. The bs Ning was being done by busybodies who knew what was right for young children.

You’re trying too hard to defend the indefensible. eBay and Amazon stopped the used book market for these not just the publisher and rights holder.

According to your take no book has ever been banned in the US and people who complained about book banning were clutching pearls.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Your sentences literally don't make sense.

It looks reasonable to me. And why ad hominem? At least you were polite; but the argument does not look compelling.

It's a normal argument for the time, but it is far from reasonable. The person who wrote the original response to me failed to respond to any of the logical arguments I was making, just spouted some outrage and moved on. So, normal yes, reasonable, no. The word "ban" in this context applies to legal or cultural actions where you make owning, acquiring, or reading a book disallowed. All that has been done is a company decided to stop selling it. You can still get the book elsewhere, still keep it if you own it, and still read it in any library that has it (which I'm sure many, many do). They are just spouting outraged nonsense.

No, it's you who failed to engage with the other commenter's arguments, or failed to understand them. They made the correct point that the famous "banned books week" also typically celebrated, and continues to celebrate, books that were not literally banned according to your definition. Thus this rhetorical extension of "banning books" to cases where books are not literally made illegal to read has a long history, and both detractors and defenders; reading the wikipedia page on Banned Books week is a good way to educate yourself on that history.

In the case of Dr. Seuss books, the near-simultaneous decision of the copyright owner to stop publishing them and of the largest online reselling market, eBay, to forbid selling and buying them, makes them, if not literally banned, vastly more inaccessible than many many other books that have been covered under the Banned Books Weeks event, written about in the media, celebrated by liberal readers (in those prior ages where liberal readers thought that right to read was more important than right to forbid) and so on. Your narrow-minded insistence on literalism is just a way of displaying your ignorance and unwillingness to engage with these difficult questions.