Books = Harmful?

The Atomic Books blog turned me onto a link of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th centuries. The list was compiled by "a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders", from the likes of well-known, prestigious colleges like Hillsdale College, Florida-Atlantic University, and Randolph-Macon College. Ok, maybe I'm not being entirely fair, as there were also representatives from Princeton and Northwestern, but still, if I want to see a list of harmful books, I'd like a plethora of opinions from more than just 15 conservatives, but I guess that would be difficult. And considering this is a conservative website, what do I expect?

All the same, I guess I can agree with their choices of 1, 2 and 3. Numbers 4 and 7 I am not sure I agree with (on the terms of being harmful, I mean come on - they were important, but I don't think they affected society in any adverse way). Numbers 5, 8 and 10 I am not familiar with, so no comment there. Number 9 is a hot topic in our household, I guess overall it became harmful because of how the Nazis chose to interpret and use it, but I have a hard time seeing it that way. A book becomes harmful because it gets misinterpreted? That seems like a slippery slope to me.
Then again, we ARE dealing with conservatives. I guess I shouldn't be so naive.

But in the end, what are they saying by making this list? Should these books have never been written? Do we have to be more careful with our opinions, beliefs, convictions?

Personally, I am glad these books were written. Not because of anything they say (I certainly don't agree with all of them), but because these writers felt they had something to say, and chose to write it down. Whether it is good or bad, has a negative impact or a positive one - where do you draw the line?

We certainly shouldn't let conservatives draw the line, that's all I know.