Not really, CK. No one read O.J's book. The condemnation and rejoicing of its removal was based on four words: If I Did It and a verbal description. Granted, none of those words were scrotum, but the book was pulled based on the outcry of thousands of people who had never read the book. When a book is challenged in schools, the first question asked of the challenger is "Have you read the book?"
If it's not black and white, then who gets to be the moral compass? Either it is or isn't censorship. If you believe in intellectual freedom, then you have to believe in and defend all intellectual freedom, not just the thoughts you agree with.
But I don't really see either case as censorship. I see them as business decisions. Publishing is about making money. Anyone who has ever received a letter from an editor stating they loved the work but didn't think it had a broad enough market, knows this.
Editors don't purchase every manuscript they read. Why? Because they don't like the words in many of them, or at least how the words are put together. Is this censorship?
Bookstores don't purchase every book that's ever been published. Why? Because they know it won't sell in their community or it doesn't fit the mission of the store. Is this censorship?
Libraries can't purchase every book either. If they choose a book because it isn't AR or is too long, is that censorship?
See, I think this is a selection issue, not a censorship issue. We may or may not agree with the selection policy or criteria, but it's not censorship.
Now, if the school says, the children may not read this book no matter where they got it from (purchased it, got it from the public library), then there's a problem.
I have read the book -- twice. Personally I didn't find it all that wonderful, given the other books that were eligible. I wasn't particularly offended by the word scrotum, but I knew it would raise red flags. Personally, I was much more offended by the cavalier eavesdropping of a child on a 12 Step program with no consequences. And I wonder why no one has taken issue with that? I wonder if we live in such voyuristic society that easvesdropping on a highly personal and private session isn't seen as inappropriate for young children to be doing.
keep writing and reading,
dave r