Because we all know that banning photo books that include that statue of David protects your children.

The basic chain of events is:

Teachers wanted to have books like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cd5VUhMrF4 available in classrooms (this is on the MO 'banned books' list). Parents (obviously) objected to this, but the teachers/librarians dug their heels in.

Due to a loss of trust, parents started demanding oversight into everything that the schools/libraries were making available, and that's how you end up with absolutely crazy things like banning photos of the statue of David.

TLDW: Erika Moen (web cartoonist) wrote a book called "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships and Being Human"; in the chapter on sexting she advises teens that pictures they send to people can never be deleted and therefore they should crop out their faces and any identifying birthmarks, etc, before sending one. A concerned parent read this passage at a school board meeting to protest this books inclusion in the library. Hilarity ensues.

but this is about public libraries, not school libraries. also, the linked video is from Alaska, not Missouri.

"The libraries wanted to make porn available to kids"

I couldn't find that mentioned anywhere in the linked article...?

> libraries wanted to make porn available to kids

this is an extremely bad faith interpretation of librarians upholding the first amendment.

> The libraries wanted to make porn available to kids

Assuming that you consider every single one of the titles on this list to be “porn”, but while many of them might be dubiously appropriate for (especially young) children, I don’t think very many of them meet any reasonable definition of “porn”.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AVW8q-B4uSZIJ3mLqc5t...

> The libraries wanted to make porn available to kids

I see you skipped the “nuance” part of the request.