zlacker

There are two operative phrases that you skipped over: "if not exclusively," and "in American politics."

I'm aware that there are ample other ways to (and entities that) ban books. Their severity is not meaningfully diminished by this conversation, and introducing them is a distraction.

>>woodru+(OP)
> refer widely, if not exclusively,

usually means

1. is usually exclusive 2. if not exclusive, then is the case in the majority of cases

The proposed case that "Book Bans" refer almost exclusively to school libraries is obviously false if you just take a look at a dictionary. It is evidently not "widely known to mean X" if common definitions do not explicitly state that.

All definitions state that it is an act of banning a book. But do not explicitly state that it is exclusive to some arbitrary bureaucratic level.

Either way, it is strange to just decide that a "Book Ban" must refer almost exclusively to a school.

And yes, this is semantics.

>>woodru+(OP)
You are the one who claimed every American to understand this to be a ban on books in schools. Which is complete nonsense as evidenced just by this thread.

I think there is a reason to point this out. Twisting language to drive, in this case a political point, is called propaganda. Calling it a ban implies something more severe than what is happening. Which is content regulation.

>>george+my
"Content regulation" is a pretty painful euphemism from "you, librarian, are forbidden from placing this book on your shelves."

>>woodru+Ap1
At least the students or their parents can buy it if they so choose because it's not banned from being sold.