Censorship?

Back in the early 90's, they started putting that parental advidory sticker on album covers. I remember getting upset about that act of "censorship." Of course, it really wasn't. At the time, we thought it was an attempt to kill hip-hop, but it really had no impact. If anything, it helped me know which records to buy. If an album didn't have the sticker, I knew to pass it by. Of course, censorship isn't about private groups getting private record companies to put an emblem on their records, and it's not about an artist's sales dropping if their non-musical actions or opinions run afoul of their fan base. That's just the market at work. When the Kansas Attorney General keeps about 1600 recordings out of the library because he feels they "don't reflect the values" of the majority of the residents, however...that's cutting it close. It's one thing for a parent to determine what types of information come into the house. When I lived with my mother, I had to go by her rules because she paid the bills. Even now, when my mother is at my house, where I pay the bills, I still accomodate her in the choice of records I listen to. One time "You Sure Love To Ball" by Marvin Gaye came on. She made me turn it off. But that's one thing. That's a private choice. For the Attorney general to make that choice for the whole state is something altogether different. Because if I'm not mistaken, the library is not a private entity. But okay, I'll take him at his word and say that he's looking out for the best interests of the majority. That leads me to some questions. Well the first question is whether there's anything on a rock & roll or rap CD that hasn't been published before. Wouldn't the community standards that Attorney General Kline is seeking to uphold be violated by a printed work just as well as they could be by an album? Or in other words, is it permissible to have a book with a suicide scene but not have Ready To Die? (In fairness, the reasons behind the removals is not discussed in detail, so this is a purely hypothetical example.) Is written violence really less offensive than audio violence? What about movies? Does this just apply to new library material or is it retroactive? I don't have a problem with disallowing materials based on community standards, but I think that the state is much too big to be considered a community. What's cool in Wichita may not go over so well in Cottonwood Falls, and vice-versa. It's one thing to say that I would have to go to the next town to get an Outkast record from the library. It's something different to say that I'd have to go to the next state.