>I can make up a scenario

Thanks, I'm aware that, in situations related to school curricula, most people need to make up absurd strawmen in order to argue that something is happening that isn't (e.g. removing pornography from the school library inevitably leads to book burnings in the parking lot after the high school football game). In your example you'd be the one in favor of banning candles because you fundamentally don't trust people to handle things themselves in a reasonable way, according to their own interests and preferences.

I don't need to make up any scenarios of slippery slope. Book banning is by itself wrong in any shape or form. It's a manifestation of the same flavor of stupidity that makes people succumb to authocratic and theocratic ideas.

Exactly. And as we've established, no book is being banned here.

The only thing we established is that you ascribe way more meaning than necessary to the word ban when it's next to a word book. Which makes you opposed to using it to describe what occured.