All the court did in this case is to say that Pandas represents speech that can be censored. I am sincerely unclear on what grounds. It's not like the book's authors are soliciting perjury, or sanctioning the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded building. Jeepers, nude dancing has "free speech" protections these days. Do you mean to say that a scholarly work does not, if an interest group rises up to protest it, and an interested, sympathetic judge is willing to accede to their demands against the interests of all other parties to the dispute? What kind of America does that make?
We are supposed to be a system organized under a rule of law, not a rule of men -- be they judges, or just a braying mob....
Personally, I think that "live and let live" -- toleration -- is the American way.
And who are these government officials? They are school board members, who presumably hold their offices so long as the electorate (that is, parents in this case) agree to their tenure. There is some confusion at the moment on that subject; but it'll all come out in the wash.
Are you suggesting that the rights of judges in America are superior to the the rights of free men, to the will of the people as expressed through the franchise? If so, please go take another look at the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
So do I, BB. Who doesn't? But that's not what the case was all about. Have you made a serious attempt to read the judge's opinion? Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..