Yes, see my linked article elsewhere in the thread. The libraries wanted to make porn available to kids, the republicans said if they did that they would try to pull their funding, and the libraries called them on it.
Assuming that you consider every single one of the titles on this list to be “porn”, but while many of them might be dubiously appropriate for (especially young) children, I don’t think very many of them meet any reasonable definition of “porn”.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AVW8q-B4uSZIJ3mLqc5t...
this is an extremely bad faith interpretation of librarians upholding the first amendment.
Teachers wanted to have books like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cd5VUhMrF4 available in classrooms (this is on the MO 'banned books' list). Parents (obviously) objected to this, but the teachers/librarians dug their heels in.
Due to a loss of trust, parents started demanding oversight into everything that the schools/libraries were making available, and that's how you end up with absolutely crazy things like banning photos of the statue of David.
I see you skipped the “nuance” part of the request.
I couldn't find that mentioned anywhere in the linked article...?