This seems like an uncommonly silly law, but...removing books from libraries isn't banning them. It's easy for me to think of books that I don't want the government exposing people to (one no one here will dispute might be The Turner Diaries), and it's easy for me to think of books that I think everyone should read that still obviously have no place in any sort of school library (PiHKAL comes to mind). Nor is removing a book from a curriculum equivalent to 'banning' it -- there are more books that should be read than there are hours in which to read them. Considering the reality of many students struggling with literacy, there has to be some level of economizing.
Anyway I don't support this but I also don't think it's any kind of outrage.
With respect, that is sheer semantics. The fact these books are indeed being banned from public libraries warrants this being referred to as book Banning without the slightest bit of hyperbole. Just because Indiana hasn't tried to literally stop any private circulation of these books among readers or bookstores is hardly any saving grace.
And yes, while I understand that a healthy respect for free speech involves a great deal of leeway, if one cannot distinguish a book like the Turner diaries, and overt explicit call for race war against blacks, mexicans, etc, versus push and they're suitability for high school teenagers, I just don't know what to tell you man. The issue is one of judgment, not legality, and in this case once again as is almost always the case books are being banned based on the values of far right fundamentalists
