To be censored, or not to be?

Literature that provokes thought or interpretation that may lead to anti-government sentiment should never be censored or withheld. As along as the piece in question does not directly lead the the reader to violently act against the government, the government should not have the right to shut the novel down. Instead of banning such novels, these novels should be revered. These books often offer a much more candid and just view on the topic in question where as a government standard issued novel may only offer its view. In Slaughter House 5, Vonnegut talks about the abject poverty of the citizens of America, while slamming the lack of intergrity of American soldiers. It is hypocritical of the Americans who banned this novel because they who faught and died on accounts of democracy are now rejecting democracy. The foundations of the USA states that any person my voice his or her views, but what the government did here is just the opposite of that. Instead of allowing Vonnegut to voice his views through his novel SH-5, the government supposedly banned the book due to its "anti-american" sentiments. But the ironic thing is that Vonnegut is fulfilling his duties as a good american by voicing his views, while the American government seeks to destroy its valued democracy by banning it.