[tigen]

That does not say teachers can't keep a library. At most it says that the titles in said library need to be reviewed/approved by the school.

The emphasis on "taking away libraries" appears to be partly politically motivated.

This isn't about censorship per se since we have a baseline expectation of censorship. We already don't allow teachers to stock racist material or porn in classrooms. This new thing seems to that there are LGBT books which veer close to the edge with stuff like explicit sex scenes.

It mentions other "proposed" laws, some of which seemingly setting a lower bar. But "proposed" laws aren't banning libraries now.

In any case, how can this possibly be an important and relevant issue today contributing to an already-observed decline in reading in 9-year olds nationally?

[rimunroe]

> That does not say teachers can't keep a library. At most it says that the titles in said library need to be reviewed/approved by the school.

It says the teachers have to remove or cover up their classroom libraries until their books can be approved by the school. I don't know how you can honestly argue that that doesn't constitute removal, even if it might be temporary.

> In any case, how can this possibly be an important and relevant issue today contributing to an already-observed decline in reading in 9-year olds nationally?

I don't know enough about the subject to comment, which is why I didn't say anything about such a relationship. I only responded to you because you were saying someone else was wrong and I didn't think you were right

[tigen]

I brought this up because the slate article cites book banning as a reason for decline of reading for enjoyment by age 9. I am arguing it is irrelevant and also essentially false in terms of classroom libraries generally not being removed on any significant scale (or at all, probably) even in Florida.

The article cited a particular school district directive which seems to be a temporary review procedure for its high schools. It would be disingenuous to say that means teachers can't keep a library, full stop, and even in that case it seems it was immediately backtracked. The law in question has since been clarified.

[krapp]

The fact that these laws are applied to all books with LGBT content regardless of what they contain - while non-LGBT books with sexual content remain unbanned and available to minors - is what makes it censorship[0].

[0]https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-florida-dont-say-gay-books-...

[tigen]

Sure but that was backed off. The law does not, in fact, apply to all books with LGBT content regardless of what they contain. There was a March 2024 legal settlement clarifying many cases that are explicitly not prohibited.

Also, do you think these laws have been important regarding the "decline by 9" of 9-year olds reading for enjoyment?

One possible issue on the contrary side is promotion of kids' books involving racial diversity themes. Often such moralizing books are not very interesting for pure entertainment value. They are there to meet a market trend, some may be better than others but in general have not stood the test of time.