It is subjective. I believe the application or suggestion here is if you are in a community that denies people under 18 the right to have access to certain books over philosophical differences, you can create a book server and give them access to books. If you live in a state, or institution in your example, that will legally punish you or worse for selling or owning a book, you can create a book server. The two are not different really, the systems/people that are limiting the access to literature and information through varying means of enforcement are trying to achieve the same ends, state enforced censorship and control.
In the article example, to deny this because of a technically or the degree of legal enforcement is foolish since it is rebelling against the act of banning books, the process of banning, which doesn't occur out of thin air, it is an evolution of acts. It is not an absolute and one doesn't have to wait until there is a legally defined ban to start the protest. That would be ridiculous as it would be too late.
I don't think the project is trying to make the Banned Library of Congress either, anyone could put whatever books they want on their server. It is suggesting civil disobedience by circumventing oppression through censorship with creativity, which is awesome.