> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to pa

> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries. Don't we though? Presuming that we have decided that the government will provide public libraries (a service we'll assume is intended to promote the general welfare, or somesuch), it wouldn't be legal, as I understand it, to pass a law refusing to let libraries purchase the Bible, nor could the law prevent libraries from storing books on black history, by black authors. Either ban would run into equal protection and 1a issues. You're making this an argument about purchasing books, but in almost all cases, the actual things happening here are removal (and destruction) of books already on library shelves. And while there are costs to sustain and store stock at libraries, those costs are extremely low comparatively, and removal of existing books is almost certainly 1a relevant. (To be clear, this is legitimately a question. You know more about constitutional jurisprudence than I do, but my understanding is that libraries banning books isn't usually acceptable from a power of the purse situation, much as like apparently title VI complaints about discriminatory transit practices can also succeed)