[theRealMe]

I mean, yeah that IS a form of censorship. A majority saying “we allow free access to any knowledge except X domain or Y specific book”.

But just think this through.

Imagine how terribly ideological available book selections would become if we had to have “the voting public” decide which books were available. I have a feeling that you would not be happy with the books that the voting majority decides are “acceptable”.

[rayiner]

It’s not “censorship” for the voting public to decide what books will be provided in a public library any more than it’s a “restriction on freedom of movement” for the voting public to decide what routes will be provided in public bus service.

[theRealMe]

Censorship is the act of suppressing content that is viewed as objectionable. There is nothing in the word that indicates the method of censorship. Allowing a subset of people to dictate what is freely available based on that group’s moral beliefs is censorship. Cut and dry.

And you act like it’s just the money of the people that don’t want the books that is being used. What about the money of the people that want the books available? Should it be up to you to say the library can’t use those people’s money to buy those books?

Quit acting like this is about the money spent when it is purely about you wanting to foist your morals onto others and using the cost as a scapegoat.

And lastly, it is not, and should not ever be the case that everyone has to agree on every dollar that the government spends. Money is spent on good programs that you as an individual will never directly benefit from. Does that mean that we should allow voters to decide how every dollar is spent? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. So long social security and Medicare and the majority don’t currently use them.