I have to say, this "Banned Books Week" event has always rubbed me the wrong way. First of all, it uses a remarkably elastic definition of "banning." Seriously, is removing a book from a list of recommended titles the same as banning it? If a library chooses not to buy your book, does that mean they're banning you? I don't even know what Biller and Anders mean when they say Alice in Wonderland was banned in the US in the 1960's. The book was widely sold and widely read throughout that decade, all over the country. Using the phrase "banned books" that way only trivializes real bans, where selling or possessing the wrong book can get you jailed or worse.
Second, the sponsors of this event always adopt a strategy of highlighting the most ridiculous "bans" they can find. It's awfully easy to laugh at people who want to ban The Wizard of Oz. But the subliminal message is that banning is only bad when it targets a book that's really quite innocent. The further implication is that there might be some not-so-innocent books out there that actually do deserve being banned. If the sponsors of the event want to stand up for an absolute principle that book-banning for any reason is always wrong, they should highlight fewer titles like The Wizard of Oz and more like Mein Kampf. To really stand up for the absolute principle, you have to show how it applies even to the worst possible books, the books that would fill any reasonable human being with revulsion.
If on the other hand the sponsors don't want to stand up for such an absolute principle, then they have some serious explaining to do about just what their opposition to book-banning amounts to. Is book-banning all right, provided you choose the right books to ban? If so, what are the criteria for being ban-worthy? As far as I can tell, the sponsors have never made any attempt to address those questions.