Imagine that I come into your living room and find you reading a book that I think is really offensive. Imagine that I get so upset about it that I steal the book, then burn it or rip out the pages that I don't like. Then imagine that when you file a complaint, the police and the courts tell you that there's nothing wrong with what I did. This may seem absurd, but what if instead of your living room we were talking about a school or a public library, and instead of me it was one of those "moral values" organizations? This is a situation that is eating away at the very roots of our constitutional system -- the banning of so-called "offensive" books from our library collections.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
