[Arainach]

Publishers releasing amended copies is not banning books. No one has demanded that original copies of such books be removed from libraries. Meanwhile state legislators in Florida and elsewhere are aggressively regulating libraries and demanding content be removed - and conservative legislatures are overwhelmingly responsible for funding cuts and closures.

[lolinder]

> No one has demanded that original copies of such books be removed from libraries.

They don't have to. Publishers caved to cultural pressure from the left and were originally planning on stopping publishing of the original editions. That plan would have phased out Dahl's work without having to force anyone to do anything—as libraries replaced damaged books their shelves would become sanitized.

Left-wing destruction of history and suppression of difficult ideas isn't better for the world just because it finds non-legislative means like silent publisher edits and massive grassroots cancellation campaigns.

Florida is awful, and I'm not condoning their legislature's behavior. But so are those who yank Harry Potter because Rowling is loudly not liberal enough for their tastes. It's just different tools to accomplish the same odious end.

[Arainach]

Please point to an example of someone pulling Harry Potter from a public or school library.

People deciding not to support an author is not censorship. Despite malicious right-wing claims trying to muddle it, being "cancelled" is just people exercising their right not to support you. No one's facing jail time for stocking Harry Potter in a library. You can't say that about right-wing crusading.