I only skimmed the summary here (didn't want to get to the spoiler), but I'm distressed by the monolithic censorship being foisted in the name of protection.

It seems to me that the only works that should be inherently censored for reading by pre-adults (however you define that limit) are books that promote or excuse cruelty. That's a relatively subjective criterion, but it's one that can foster fruitful discussion and debate. It's much easier to use a blanket cutoff, e.g. burn any book that even mentions a particular gender of a specific character character or real-life person. https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-georgia-batman-187446af4b03ac9a4b8fc4757852b446

The ideal reading material for people of any age would promote compassion and empathy and would question acts of cruelty. Of course many of the works censored by the blanket brigade would teach these positive values far more effectively than the milquetoast Sunday School lessons of the ironically self-proclaimed Moms for Liberty.

But the censors don't want to promote positive values; they want to institutionalize their own power and force their vision on everyone, not just their own children.