Another no from me. Even in the case of overtly dangerous ideas and pseudoscience that makes a case for bigotry (The Bell Curve, Irreversible Damage, etc), burning the books is an overly simplistic solution that would make a martyr of these authors while ignoring the real reasons people are drawn to exclusionary or fascistic ideologies. These tendencies arise out of social inequality, scapegoating, and unexamined fear of the other that won't go away simply with the removal of certain titles. Moreover, I think the words (fictional and otherwise) of cruel and hateful actually offer us a very valuable insight into the draw of certain ideas and behaviours, and therefore leave us better equipped to combat them - in ourselves, too.

I agree very young children should have a certain amount of benign control exercised over what they have access to (ETA: and that this is the responsibility of their carers and teachers, not the state), or at the very least an adult in their lives who'll talk them through anything they read that upsets or confuses them. For the rest of us, I don't believe the potential for someone to make a bad choice should be answered by restricting our choices. It's through conversation that we learn, and unsavory book can make for a great starting point.