"sensitive" as a criteria is a dead giveaway they are censors advertising themselves as the opposite. It's an evolved brand of censor; like some types of predator snakes that have evolved to mimic its harmless prey.
i think it's fairly common knowledge that preventing the publishing of a book in the first place probably counts as censorship, but considering the nature of this library it becomes pretty fuzzy
So if the State of Florida sets a criteria for inclusion for it's library collections of "not gay," then it's not censorship in your mind?
"Criteria for inclusion" and "censorship" are the exact same thing, the only difference between them is how the speaker feels about it.
> "Criteria for inclusion" and "censorship" are the exact same thing, the only difference between them is how the speaker feels about it.
yes, this is very important, which is exactly why a library like this selecting which works to include is not censorship. now if people intentionally submitted their own works and the library tried to hide or deny the existence of those requests, now that would be censorship
i think state libraries are in a slightly different situation. it is definitely fuzzy though
Yes, because that's an irrelevant activity to this topic.
> yes, this is very important, which is exactly why a library like this selecting which works to include is not censorship.
At least in contemporary liberal culture, words like "censorship" and "ban" are frequently used to label "criteria for inclusion" that the speaker disagrees with.
> now if people intentionally submitted their own works and the library tried to hide or deny the existence of those requests, now that would be censorship
That's one kind of censorship, but not the only kind (see above).
Why wouldn't that be good enough?
How is something that has a wikipedia page censored in any way?
If that isn't enough, nothing will be.
If you are ok with general, the cases of Monkeypox not that long ago are an evident example. The reality of the matter is that it affected almost exclusively homosexual men, yet since that would have hurt LGBT sensitivities, it was often omitted and even campaigned against.
It's a illness coming from a virus.
Don't understand why homosexuals are related in any way to censorship here....
(Edit: for anyone interested : https://glaad.org/mpox/
The censoring is nowhere to be seen
Edit2:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/opinion/gay-men-mpox.html
Like what do you even mean? What was censored? )
Maybe find a solid example?