The difference between a book and a statue

[Phage]

I have an issue.  Well, many, but that's beside the point.

For weeks now, the narritive has been that knocking down statues is justified because racism.  And that's confused me.  

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That used to be the rallying cry of freedom lovers everywhere.
But now it's "I disapprove of what you say and it offends me, so shut the hell up!"
Statues are an object of free expression.  Same as the written word.  What is the difference between a statue and a book?  Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.
So I see the statue topplers the same as book burners.

Now some are also saying, "HEY!  Just put the statues in a museum!"  

Really.

A fricking museum.  What museum?  When?  Are you going to control the hours it is open, the days the museum is open?
So now we have authoritarians dictating where and when free expression can be expressed.
Which stops making free expression. . . .free.
Which is what they ultimately want.
I'd like to hear others opinions.  Am I right?  Wrong?

Quite a difference, actually.

A statue an image of a person. Most often, an homage. An homage which is on constant display.

A book is a collection of ideas. A collection which one may choose to delve into, or not.

If one wants to see a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, he should be free to do so. In a museum.

(Where the hell am I supposed to insert my reply? Before the quote, or after?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Yes. One which one has no choice but to view when it is in a public place.

When I visited Paris a few years ago I went to the Rodin museum. There was a Robert Maplethorpe exhibit there. I had no interest in seeing it. I was able to avoid seeing it because it was in a separate part of the museum. It was not in the town square.