Those two are literally the same thing. The “banning books” you’re talking about is literally the state curating the selection of children books in public libraries. Florida is not actually banning sales of certain books, as it would be illegal for it to do it (except in some edge cases), all it’s doing is curating the selection of books in libraries. The critics call it “banning books” to confuse audience into thinking that some books are actually getting “banned”, which is simply not happening.

You will have a hundred individual teachers in your life but a lot of children can grow up with a single party in office.

Literally? Oh come on, stop being dense.

Let's start with - today, one of these has the words "felony" attached to it. The other does not.

It is not my fault that the activists decided to call it “banning books” when the government curates selection of books in public school libraries. I wish that such confusing language has not been introduced, but here we are: people are now calling it “banning books”. It is not I who made them the same thing, it’s the activists who tried to confuse this with a different sort of government activity which is not taking place. I have no idea what “felony” you are talking about.

This is a completely disingenuous post.

How so? Can you explain?

It's so obtuse as to not be genuinely believable. I have no reason to believe you struggled to understand the poster's meaning to the point that you genuinely offered that as a means of creating greater understanding.

What was the poster’s meaning, then? Sorry, I genuinely do not understand what you are getting at here.

I always assume a reply like this is generated by an ai, because a real human would have tried to make himself understood if he's going to bother saying things

I guess if I was to obtusely debate the meaning of "banned books" as a means of ignoring the substantive issue, you'd have found it an incredibly compelling post

Sure it is. So hypothetically if some content you found objectionable was being taught to children in, let's pick a state at random, California, you would be opposed to Gov. Newsom stepping in to ban the material? Let's say the material had a history of being politically charged but the other side insists it is valid material. I'll leave it up to you to decide what is objectionable but see my other comment for suggestions. Are you still committed to preventing government overreach now? If so, that's consistent at least.

Yes.

Librarians are public employees. They are given a lot of discretion in how they do their jobs. But like any employee, their discretion can be overruled by people in charge of the organization.

What you’re suggesting is that unelected librarians have some sort of independent authority over deciding what books children should be exposed to that isn’t subject to review by elected officials. There’s an extremely short list of such roles in government—pretty much just government prosecutors and similar positions. Librarians, teachers, etc., are just employees hired to do what the elected government wants them to do.