It's interesting that people are responding like this rather than answering my question. I know how democracy works and that includes the occasional instances of tyranny of the majority.

That still doesn't address my original question. Is there historic precedent for this type of micromanaging of school libraries (if you're adamant that we shouldn't use the B word) that most of us would still agree with today? Because many of the books on the list seem more likely to follow the path of eventual school classics like The Grapes of Wrath or To Kill a Mockingbird than they are to continue to be banned decades into the future.

Freedom of speech (in the US) protects book publishing too, or do you think school boards are elected, county and state governments are above the constitution?

How does not stocking a book in a school library due to community complaints or even a state law conflict with the first amendment?

Curation is not the issue. The librarians already selected and purchased the books, the state is forcing the librarians to remove them for political reasons. The state could hire qualified activist librarians who only want politically conservative "approved" books who curate only those books, but I will let you guess why they can't find qualified conservative librarians.

Who said curation was the issue? Where is the assumption that libraries don't have political reasons even coming from? The state handpicks librarians? What is with the implication that there are no "qualified conservative librarians"????

What in the world are you talking about? Why are you spouting a bunch of bigotry that isn't relevant to anything?

  Call me when you're arrested or fined for buying/selling any book in US.

Are you offering pro bono representation?

I'm very sorry but a bunch of bigots getting on the school board still shouldn't be able to unilaterally say "there must be absolutely no representation of gay people in any books in the library because the presence of LGBT content is pornographic."