[arcticbull]

> It is just incredibly dishonest to pretend that you are upset at this for any reason other than that you want these particular books available to children, which is exactly as partisan as demanding their absence.

That's not possible, as, and this is true, I didn't go through the list. I suggest that you may be assuming a lot about me.

[constantcrying]

You do not support the removal of these books.

My claim is that: - Everybody supports the removal of certain books - Demanding the exclusion or demanding the inclusion are both partisan issues. Neither is a politically neutral stance.

This suggests that this is not a free speech issue at all, but a political issue with two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.

[falcolas]

> two sides wanting/not wanting children to read particular books.

No.

One group of people don’t want any children reading certain books. The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents).

An important distinction.

[constantcrying]

>The rest leaves the choice of reading the books in question up to the children (and/or their parents).

Complete nonsense. Libraries are not staffed by children nor their parents. What goes into a school library is not some ideologically neutral ground where books just happen to appear, because of the inner desires of children. These books are bought because the people in charge off filling a library want children to read them. This is true for all books in a library, but it automatically guarantees that school libraries are curated. And curation is not ideologically neutral.

It is totally disingenious to pretend that this is not about you wanting children to read those particular books.