> to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". Not really? I don't know, maybe I'm in a minority here but I

> to say "X is banned" with no additional context is to say that "X is banned under all contexts". Not really? I don't know, maybe I'm in a minority here but I don't think I am -- I'm not against providing additional context, additional context is often helpful. But I don't think this is an exceptional use of the word, and I think these are pretty clearly bans. I do not agree with that characterization of common usage, I suspect most people understand that bans can apply to specific scopes/situations. I do think people are a little too cavalier sometimes about saying "it's not censorship if I agree with it or it's legal." We censor things sometimes. When we ban porn from a children's section in a library, that's censorship -- it's good censorship that we should be doing. People attach a lot of emotion to these words that maybe isn't appropriate or helpful to attach. > government entity chooses not to provide thing that's within its purview A government entity mandating that public schools may not provide a resource in their libraries is not "deciding not to cover" something, it is a restriction -- it's a ban. I sort of understand where you're coming from semantically, and if the only thing happening here was that librarians were choosing not to stock the books, I might agree with that semantic distinction. I don't think it would necessarily be a ban for a naturally limited space to not happen to have every single piece of content. But that's not what's happening: schools, local governments, and state governments are barring their inclusion. The books are being specifically excluded from those spaces, regardless of whether or not the people tasked with maintaining those spaces want to include them. That's a ban.