> Irregular bans tend to be ideologically driven. They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions pre

> Irregular bans tend to be ideologically driven. They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process (e.g. standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or “mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves). So that basically boils down to: "Most everyone agrees that mature/17+ content should be excluded and it regularly is. In contrast, irregular bans are for content that is not typically excluded or that falls beyond the lists of categories that would immediately spring to someone's mind when asked what types of content shouldn't be shown to kids." On one hand, yeah, that's a subjective classification. Absolutely. On the other hand, anyone who argues that "I Am Rosa Parks" isn't an irregular ban is not really seriously engaging with that classification. There is a generally understood difference for most reasonable people between pornography and the history of Black activism (regardless of whether or not that portrayal of history is one that everyone likes). And while blurry lines can be really problematic, to argue that censorship of adult/mature material grants carte blanch rights for governments and public school boards to exclude any book from school settings is to basically give up entirely on trying to find any way to protect 1st Amendment rights in lower education. You're really not even going to try to draw a line anywhere? From the article: > We did entertain the viewpoint from ban advocates that the books being banned are largely driven by age-inappropriate content. This viewpoint does not align with publisher provided maturity ratings as below: > [...] > Further, the particular age-inappropriate topics being referred to by ban advocates like violent or sexual content are specific to social violence and non-heteronormative sexual topics. Books that heavily feature heterosexual relationships and/or military violence are not being referred to by ban advocates nor are they disproportionally being targeted. I have some sympathy for people who argue that these distinctions are subjective because blurry lines are how we get this type of censorship in the first place. Blurry lines are how we get people getting bolder and bolder about what books to exclude from libraries and curriculum. But that's not a defense of the current bans, if anything it's a warning to be even more careful about subjectively defined categories of censorship. Especially when those categories are so clearly being expanded. I mean, come on, these books are obviously not getting excluded because they're too violent or too mature for kids. Even ban proponents are not arguing that; they're arguing that the books are "revisionist history", or that they're "propaganda", or that they're "unfair." And yeah, that's pretty obviously an ideological ban and it's pretty obviously different from traditionally accepted categories of book bans around pornography and violence. We don't have to pretend that the motivations are a mystery; it is extremely clear why books on Rosa Parks and queer identity are getting banned from schools.