Last week was “Banned Books Week,” a week not to celebrate banning books, but a week to recognize what a threat banning books — any book — is to our democracy and our right to free speech as guaranteed in our constitution.

When I noticed it was Banned Books Week, it reminded me of the time when I was 14 years old, and my mom had taken my sister and myself to the public library. My mother was a firm believer in reading, and we went to the public library often. The time would have been the early 1970s. When I had selected my books, I took them up to the checkout counter. The librarian was stamping a few books and suddenly stopped. The book that gave her pause was “The Graduate.” She looked at me and then looked at my mother and asked my mother if she thought I was old enough to be reading “that book.” I will never forget what my mother said.

“I believe my daughter is old enough to make her own choices in what she reads,” she said.

I got to read “The Graduate.” Spoiler alert: it wasn’t all that racy.

I have looked at the list of books that local library and school boards have on the so-called “banned book” list. They all surprise me; perhaps they will surprise you, too.

Some are classics that I read in high school. Some were required reading in college freshman literature classes.

Books such as Pearl Buck’s “The Good Earth,” or J.D Salinger’s “A Catcher in the Rye,” or Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn.” Even the Harry Potter books, beloved by many, have made it on to that list. Even one of my favorite books of all time (and the movie), “To Kill A Mockingbird” is on the list.

The reasons for how all these books made it on to this list vary. For example, with “To Kill A Mockingbird,” it’s because it involves accusations of rape of a white woman by a Black man and discussions of racism. With “Huckleberry Finn,” it’s people’s objection over the use of the word “N—–” and that the word is liberally sprinkled throughout the book. People forget that that term was used during the time the book was written, and to have used any other term would have taken away from the authenticity of the book and weakened the credibility of it.

Then there are the books that deal with the angst of coming of age and yes, that involves exploring one’s sexuality.

Then of course there is “Charlotte’s Web,” by E.B. White. Why the ban on this one? It deals with death and has talking animals. With “A Catcher in the Rye,” it’s due to excessive violence and profanity. For “The Call of the Wild,” by Jack London, it’s not just banned for its violence and “dark tone,” but for London’s so-called socialist views. Others that have the honor for making the banned book list: “Gone With the Wind,” “Anne Frank: Diary of A Young Girl,” “Of Mice and Men,” “The Scarlet Letter” and “The Great Gatsby.” The list goes on and on.

In a recent article published in the Los Angeles Times, columnist Michael Hiltzik said book banners who are not satisfied with going after schools are now targeting public libraries in an attempt to prevent adults from having access to certain books the book banners deem inappropriate. But who gets to say what is inappropriate for whom? Is it OK for one group to be able to control what another group or individual has access to in the way of ideas or information?

Hiltzik cites Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, who notes the remarkable change in focus from book-banning advocates from school libraries to public libraries. Last year, she said, about 16% of demands to remove books involved public libraries. This year it’s 49%. She said some groups go to public library board meetings demanding the removal of 25, 50 and 100 titles at a time.

She said, “demands to remove books because they don’t comport with someone’s beliefs, or their political or religious agendas are attacks on the very thought of a library as a place that protects First Amendment rights to access a wide variety of views.” She concludes by saying, “this amounts to the government telling us what to read, what to think and what to believe.”

However, Hiltzik notes there has been a change: A backlash has been gaining strength among parents and others who don’t want their kids or themselves deprived of access to books because fringe members of their communities want to impose their beliefs or political ideologies on everyone else.

Hiltzik concludes his column by saying that there are few indications that the wave of book bans will end anytime soon; not until the defenders of free speech stand up to defend their school and public libraries against a minority that believes that medieval standards of learning and knowledge should be the model for American society.

The point is — and there is a point — if you don’t want to read a book because you find it objectionable, then don’t read it. If you, as a parent, do not want your child reading a book you find objectionable, then don’t let them read it. That is your right as a parent. But you do not have the right to prevent anyone else from exercising their choice in what they read, or what they allow their children to read. And, you do not have the right to prevent anyone from having access to anything in the public domain, even if it does not agree with your personal belief system.

In short, you are not the arbiter of what is acceptable reading material for anyone but yourself and your children.

Maybe one day there won’t be a need for a “Banned Books Week.” I hope so.