zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
Yeah but “banning books” isn’t much of a thing. Even the ALA talks about “challenged books.”

And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions.

This bill just doesn’t do much. I’m not opposed to it. I guess it might do a little good.

But it’s posturing by politicians.

>>pyuser+ab
> And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions.

This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. Neither the article nor law implies that "book ban" in this context means anything other than "school book ban."

>>woodru+Xc
I don't understand how you would think the two are the same.

A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs.

And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?

>>george+ye
> A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs.

Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1].

> And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?

Yes.

[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...