zlacker

"Doctrinal" isn't defined in the bill so far as I can see, which means it has its ordinary definition, something along the lines of relating to the message of the text. Pornography bans are justified by obscenity, which has a specific test given by SCOTUS, of which the third prong is that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," which is effectively tantamount to saying that it has no message that can be disagreed with.

So if you're attempting to ban it because it's obscene, that's okay. But if you're trying to call it pornographic because the lead characters are in a romantic relationship and happen to be of the same sex... well, that's not obscene, and your attempt to call it pornographic is doctrinal disapproval.

>>jcranm+(OP)
Oh, so it's the doctrine of the text that matters, not the doctrine that is the reason behind the "censorship." That makes more sense. I mean the Miller Test is a doctrine after all. To clarify something; I think the ALA bill of rights is overall good. It's just the 2nd clause (which is the only part required to be adopted by this law) that I was struggling to find a way to interpret that wouldn't impair librarians' ability to meaningfully curate.

And to be clear: As a rule, I am in favor of librarians making this decision without interference. Librarians have repeatedly put their livelyhoods at stake in order to protect individuals access to information, and protect the privacy of those same individuals.