I followed the link, couldn't find any quantification of success / efficacy.
We're not likely to get a statute rendering it illegal for one group of citizens to interfere with the library options of other citizens. Congress hasn't the spine for that. BUT !
A stare decisis ruling tied to the First Amendment could serve much the same purpose.
note:
Casual consideration may regard our First Amendment as an impeccable defense of noble principle. The reality is a little less glamorous.
Popular speech, "I love you Mommy" has little if any need of defense in law.
The speech that needs protection is that which is most subject to criticism, objection. Consider the "Skokie" precedent.
1A protects UNpopular speech.
So in the case of book banning, the classics may be in jeopardy.
But when the book to be restricted is titled: How To Murder 57 Persons And Get Away With It what then?
