What's Up with France?

I went to France in 2009. There was dog poo everywhere in Paris. Get it together, France.

No official order prevents anyone from buying the book. Nothing was prevented from happening. The book is still published and distributed. It isn't banned.

Most (all) of the news articles refer to books being banned from *public institutions* like schools and libraries.
When an article says "banned", what they are saying is that it is "banned from schools and/or libraries".

I'm not sure if the us government has *ever* legislated that specific books are not allowed to be sold privately.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States


It may be a good idea to note how specific words are used in the context of the news stories being reported,  else one ends up sounding like those quacks who think that the science behind gravity is arguable because "it's just a theory". 

Yeah, if the US government attempts to prevent something from being published, that has a specific name: "prior restraint", and there are not many cases of it being attempted.  Probably most famous is the Pentagon Papers under Nixon.  There is also the occasional "gag order" to prevent certain public discussion that may prejudice a jury trial, but those are notably temporary.

But then we have Trump, whose administration attempted to prevent books from being published on more than one occasion, because Trump is a petulant, thin-skinned child.

First, the Trump DOJ tried to withhold John Bolton's book from publication, ostensibly on the grounds that it hadn't been cleared for classified information.  Turns out, there was probably no classified information it (like Trump cares about classified docs), but coincidentally (?) Bolton describes Trump as erratic and "stunningly uninformed" and said in interviews prior to the book that he was unfit for office. 

In another example, a US District Court found that Trump's DOJ's attempts to send his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen back to prison were retaliation for his plan to write a tell-all book.

Trump also sued or threatened to sue others to prevent unflattering books about him during his presidency, from niece Mary Trump to former BFF Steve Bannon.

I was in a family restaurant, enjoying my coffee, when the waitress attempted to exercise prior restraint against me and my friend. The attempt at suppression of our basic freedoms failed and I continued to sit and enjoy my coffee.

See, the issue there is that they need to *legislate* for it to work out properly.
If they created laws preventing JonVoightCar from enyoying things in public places, then the matter could be relegated to public services like SWAT, fire, and police teams. No family restaraunt staff would be forced to excise prion stains or whatever by themselves.

"Mein Kampf" is a) only one book, not those books, and b) I never said it was banned. 

It was an "incredibly stupid" thing for you to say.

I've also repeatedly tried to help you see a few significant distinctions, such as how "not in the curriculum" does not necessarily mean "banned", and being available for sale does not mean a book has not been physically removed, i.e. banned, from public libraries where it was previously available. 

But you seem unwilling or unable to make such distinctions. 

What do you think "banned" means? You are banned from my apartment. Does that mean you are banned in korea?

i

Most (all) of the news articles refer to books being banned from *public institutions* like schools and libraries.
When an article says "banned", what they are saying is that it is "banned from schools and/or libraries".

I'm not sure if the us government has *ever* legislated that specific books are not allowed to be sold privately.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States


It may be a good idea to note how specific words are used in the context of the news stories being reported,  else one ends up sounding like those quacks who think that the science behind gravity is arguable because "it's just a theory". 

So they are not, in fact, banned. Phew.

Kyndo, you need to study the English language more carefully! Words have meanings!

So they are not, in fact, banned. Phew.

Kyndo, you need to study the English language more carefully! Words have meanings!

And sometimes the usage and meanings of those words change according to context. 

I mean, when American activists protest gun control, do you assume that they're protesting the ban of *all* guns *everywhere*? Of course not. 
Usually they're talking about legislation concerning specific weapons (hand guns and automatic rifles, for example) in specific places (the USA, obviously, or more specifically, in their state).
Should they not use the word "ban" because the gun control laws are not *absolute* bans? Again, no (although it *would* be helpful if the particular aspects of gun control they were take issue with are specified).

In the same way, when discussing modern censorship in the USA, "book bans" most commonly refer to legislation that prevent certain books from being allowed in public institutions like schools and libraries.  I don't believe that it has been implied here on waygook that books were being banned from publication (except for a few that were nixed due to national security risks, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand).  That would also be a ban, but because such bans are exceptionally uncommon, it would probably be prefaced with an explanation that it affected publication as well.

This, by the way, has already been mentioned in this thread.