I don't know of any progressives who didn't enjoy reading "To Kill A Mockingbird".

It isn't Dr. Seuss that progressives wanted banned, but the outdated racial stereotypes portrayed in just two of his books. Indoctrinating children with racial stereotypes is just not a good idea. The publishers can always choose to omit them. It isn't like Dr. Seuss is great literature.

It is (mostly) the Christian Conservatives who want/wanted to ban the Harry Potter books. They believe that magic and witchcraft is real, and that the books promote it.

It is both conservatives and progressives who are concerned about the dangerous contents of the Anarchist's Cook Book. It is a tool used by terrorists, whether they be domestic or foreign. Concerns about this book are out of legitimate concerns for public safety, as the "recipes" create the means to destroy and blow things up.

@snytiger6 You may not know any personally, but they're out there, and are the types responsible for seeking/getting that book banned from certain schools.

Believe I had mentioned that it was certain Dr. Seuss books and not the author on the whole. As for the indoctrination part, based on my undertanding of that particular issue with some of his books, the indoctrination part could be debated as to just how serious that really is. Also, shouldn't we leave that sort of thing up to the individual to decide how to approach the books in question? I had read a few of the titles in question as a kid, and if there were any baseless stereotypes present throughout those pages, it sure didn't influence the way I thought or acted towards others, and at worst (or best, depending on how one looks at it) the supposed stereotypes went over my head. Just because there are (perceived) stereotypes in a book, I don't think the best course of action would be to simply ban or censor them in any way. Also, I believe it was six of his books that had recently come under fire, and not just two.-
[cbc.ca]

As for Harry Potter, while it's true that series had largely come under fire from religious conservatives in the past, in more recent times (as recent as last year) the series has been harshly criticized by millennial progressive activists who had claimed that not only is the author Rowling transphobic but also homo and transphobia is present throughout the books. So both social extremes have not criticized that book series. In reality, it could be argued that the Harry Potter universe contains both liberal and conservative values, and whether or not Rowling is truly bigoted as accused could be debated.

As for the last one, do you honestly believe that putting bans on that book will magically make it disappear forever? And the reasoning behind that ban is concerning, and should concern anyone who is opposed to needless censorship. Once we go by such logic, there's no turning back, and said logic could conceivably get warped in order to suit certain agendas that in turn could undermine the rights of others. For example, some radicalized conservatives could and have maintained that it's best to ban books depicting homosexual relationships on the grounds that such gave society horrible diseases such as AIDS and is thus a danger to society and needs to get banned. What some perceive to be as a danger to society as a whole can be highly subjective. While the Anarchist Cookbook does indeed offer "recipes" to craft homemade weapons, it is not suggested to ever use such weapons and the book exists mostly as a means of knowledge. Some may conclude we don't need such knowledge, which is perfectly fine for them to feel that way, but I don't think book bans based on such perceptions are the best way to handle that though. Furthermore, given the rather violent and abhorrent nature of the Bible, should we ban that book as well? I'd say that's probably not the best idea, even though I vehemently detest that book.