Banning books is bad business

Right-on-the-money editorial from a newspaper in Northern California regarding the recent (incorrect) controversy surrounding Republican V.P. candidate Sarah Palin and charges that she tried to ban books from the local library during her tenure as small-town Wasilla, AK mayor.  Although it later turned out that Palin did not actually have a list of books she wanted banned, the editorial pointed out that:

As recounted by Anne Kilkenny, a frequent city council attendee, "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the lines of 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.

Banning books doesn't usually work; people don't like the idea and they usually react viscerally to someone attempting to ban material.  However, I thought the editorial writer made an interesting point.  That as an executive branch official, she might have the authority in place to ...

... wield considerable influence upon federal funding for libraries. In the same way that the Clinton Administration made federal funding contingent upon libraries installing filters on the Internet, Palin could advocate legislation that placed restrictions upon the selection of books.

As scary as this sounds, I find it much more likely than an outright ban on certain titles, and more cost effective.  Just pull the funding if you find something objectionable.  It is a scenario that might be all too real...