Censorship

I've read Farenheit 451, so my opinion is heavily influenced by it.

If one book is banned officially by a government, that paves the way for more books to be banned, until we hit the point where creativity is nonexistent.

If somebody doesn't want their child to read something, then by all means, they should have THAT right. After all, childern (in general) do not have the capability to make smart decisions on their own. However, I don't think that anybody should have the right to take that away from fully mature adults.

 

I don't believe books should be banned. Of course, I'm leaning more towards less censorship with just about everything. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example of what happens when books get banned and whatnot. People just need to learn how to stop being a crybaby. We will never get to a point where everybody is happy, so people need to deal with being offended. It is the person's choice to read the book.

 

I personally find it stupid that they wouldn't be able to sell their book, this is the U.S. and the one admendment of the constitution states freedom of speech, we also have freedom of press. So no these books should be ok and be allowed to be sold in bookstores and be in libraries. However in public schools and private schools(which are religious christian schools), I do not believe the books should be allowed.

For public, schools, such religious books are not allowed to be in the school library, the rule should carry on over to such books going against religions. In private schools, most are christian religious schools so probably best they're kept out, but I believe this would be optional, and probably wouldn't be located in those school libraries.

 

Which is one of the things I like about my high school english teacher. She'd read books to us during class, Huckleberry Finn being one of them. And she wouldn't change any word. She'd read it as it was printed.

If anything, schools are the one place where books shouldn't be banned. Schools should have a multitude of books, ranging from simple fiction stories to religious text. Having a wider variety of books would encourage more learning.

 

It's never wrong to question things. Burning books is just another way to shape people and refuse them the resources of an intellectual.

Censorship is nonsense, in my opinion. Why censor something they'll inevitably find out about anyway? It's called the internet; derp

 

Books are a way for a person to express oneself. The world has a vast expanse of different minds and ways of thinking. I personally believe that banning a book will not necessarily work. Just because you take away a source of doubt doesn't mean you can completely take away doubt from people.

I am not afraid of books being banned, I'm afraid of people not caring if it happens. If books get banned then it is more the fault of the people who didn't speak against it than those who banned it.

There have been several times when a book would get banned at a school because parents didn't want their kids exposed to something they thought innapropriate. I say let students learn anything they want. If you don't learn from different perspectives of life then you won't gain open-mindedness. It seems close-mindedness has always been common and along with greed was the source of most conflict.

Then there have been people who wanted books to be banned because they taught bad morals and such. A book can only have a dangerous effect on the weak-minded. You always have a choice and you can choose to follow a teaching. People who want a book banned are in a way promoting the society that books such as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are warning against.

"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them."
-Ray Bradbury

 

Everyone seems to be anti-censorship...but let's face it, deep inside we all long for structure and order, each to our own varying degrees.

While I'm not going to lie, many books are censored for stupid reasons, there is an underlying theme: Is the book appropriate? Who should and should not be reading them? The biggest example is children...should they be reading about gender, race, or social issues? Politics? Arguably, they shouldn't be (and if you're reading this going "why can't they read about politics?" then think of a more extreme example...I'm sure a convincing enough one exists).

Knowledge is power, critical thinking is key, but only to an extent. By the reasoning of most people in this thread, I should be able to publish a book situated around a racist, homophobic, misogenystic white male's drug use (and how using drugs leads to the most amazing experiences, and why orgies/sex with minors is great, etc.) and no one would have the right to tell me "This is inappropriate for children." What about books glamourizing gang violence? "That's not inappropriate?" Well...it is. Anything that could potentially (even in the most minute of circumstances) impact a child's safety is inappropriate. We err on the side of caution: We don't get into a car every day expecting to get into a car accident, however we do get into a car and buckle our seatbelt every day, just because there's a slight possibility.

Conversely, someone looking for such a book has the right to read it...but for all intents and purposes, if such an individual had such specific tastes in literature, they should know where to get it (ie. not at their nephew's elementary school library).

It seems to me that the 'perfect solution' is actually a compromise in this case. No person should truly have what is 'appropriate' decided for them...unless they're unfit to make such a decision (ie. a minor).

 

While what you said is true, I think that nowadays if a child were to pick up some book that would be inappropriate for them, they wouldn't read it. I'm guessing that they would consider it boring and just toss it aside.

Since we're mainly talking about book censorship I figured I'd put up something I consider a tad bit funny. Yesterday my friend was telling my the last time she had gone to UC Santa Barbara (I think that is how it is spelt). She said in the school's library was a huge list of banned books. At least half, if not more, of the books my high school english teacher had us read was on that list. Including, but not limited too, Beowulf, Catcher in the Rye, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and 1984.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this.

The 'taboo' or 'inappropriateness' of activities is what motivates many children/teenagers to do things in the first place. It's like smoking, nobody waits until they're of age and then goes "I could sure use a cigarette" as soon as they can. Statistically, anyone who waits until age 19 (or whatever it is in your specific area) and has yet to start smoking, will probably never smoke...most (and something on the order of 95%) of smokers start in their teens before being 'legal smokers.' To a lesser degree, this applies to alcoholism, narcotic use, etc.

If you tell a kid 'this is an inappropriate book' they'll want to read it that much more. Perhaps it's curiosity, perhaps rebellion, but there do need to be boundaries for kids in either case.

---------------

And if it's true, and those are banned at the university level (your UC Santa Barbera remark), then that falls into the category of 'banned for a stupid reason' imo. Especially since a university has such mixed populations.

 

Maybe I'm just thinking for a different age range. The children in my last post I considered to be 10 at the oldest. And nobody telling them if it is a good or bad book. I just think that if a child at that age just picked up a book they'd never heard of before, and it is a book that is inappropriate for them, they'd just ignore it due to lack of interest.

 

Ok sure. But then in that case, having 'difficult literature' (whether 'inappropriate' or highly intellectual) available to them (at say a school library) would be a waste of resources, wouldn't it?

 

Based off of what I've said, yes. But all that difficult literature would be useful if some kid was doing some kind of report or something where they'd be forced to look at the difficult literature.

 

I have read part of HItler's Mein Kampf. I do not like HItler at all and if anything this book just helped me to realize how he was just an overzealous guy who became greedy. I revealed this to show that even if a book is inappropriate it doesn't do anything to a kid unless he/she decides to do something on their own free will. I don't like telling people I read it. I only did because of curiosity and I like to seek knowledge wherever it may be.

I think parents need to be more open with their kids about what they think is innapropriate content. If a kid understands these things then they won't go and try to see them discretely.

 

To all of you people who use the "Freedom of Speech" argument, there is NO control over that. People twist around that amendment so much that it's almost impossible to take it literally.