I'm doing a persuasive essay on banned books for my speech and debate class. I need all the info i can get on both sides of the matter. share share! let your feelings out!
2007-01-30 14:02:07 · 11 answers · asked by moira bora 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
My personal belief on banned books is this. Books should not be banned, they should be out there for anyone and everyone to enjoy. It is up to the parents to set boundries for their kids. I would not let my ten year old daughter read Lolita or Heart of Darkness, but I think those are both fabulous books for high school and college kids to read. My husband and I are parents, the government is not. We can apply the proper restraints to printed material that goes in and out of our house, the government should not.
Feel free to use that.
2007-01-30 14:12:43 · answer #1 · answered by doglover12789 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
IMO, books should never be banned. A single person does not have the right to choose what a group of people can or cannot read. A parent can choose for their own child/ren but not for any other children. If a person does not want to read something, then they can choose not to read it, but they cannot decide for others.
I'd suggest reading Nat Hentoff's "The Day They Came to Arrest the Book." It's a great work of fiction that tells both sides' stories when students and faculty at a high school become embroiled in a censorship case over "Huckleberry Finn." Hentoff has written several works, both fiction and nonfiction, about censorship. He'd be a great reference source for your debate. Check out "The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America" by Hentoff.
2007-01-31 01:29:02 · answer #2 · answered by BlueManticore 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Love them! If I'm not supposed to read it or see it, that's all the more reason to do so, right? I think banning them might be the worst thing that can happen. In elementary school someone read a book that talked about sex and abortion (this has been a few years, so it was big time) and of course, we all had to check it out before the librarian figured it out. It was taboo, so we wanted it. If books weren't banned, people would have opportunities to make their own decisions and they could take it or leave it. But if it's something that is against the law, most will want to take it and read it - gives it more power. Why would it be banned? It must be true. Right? Makes me think about a book someone asked about on here a few nights back - a banned book in India called Polyester Prince. I couldn't find it for them anywhere! And of course, it's made me curious - why was it banned? Maybe it's one you could look at.
2007-01-30 14:14:04 · answer #3 · answered by Isthisnametaken2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Banned books continuously shows that there is something that a society does not decide on to address, no matter if it really is different religions, diverse political view, sexuality, or moral values. that is a way of hiding from something that the society would not extremely decide on to face, and it shows a weak spot in that society. thinking this, banning books is amazingly a foul idea because the rebellious factions will continuously decide on those books and could take care of them at the same time as contained in the overall public someone will continuously ask about those forbidden matters. scholars and instructors continuously reason issues for a closed society because of such issues as this. Society ought to besides purely open up the communicate because maximum individuals of people will be conservative besides if it truly is whats most advantageous the society on the time. as well, it really is unlike banning books will take care of society by any skill.
2016-12-03 06:31:43 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only books that hurt someone in the making should be banned, IE child pornography should be both banned and illegal. Books that provoke an action such as calling for the burning of churches or synagogues should be banned. Books that insight violence toward others should be banned. Free expression of ideals and political views are essential to a free society. But to insight violence or hurt other, either physically or emotionally are not protected right.
2007-01-30 14:17:04 · answer #5 · answered by RUDOLPH M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But who is going to decide what is banned? Sally Mann took pictures of her kids in the nude that some groups consider pornographic. But her works are in the permanent collection of the Met and many other famous art institutions. To this day, there is no established legal definition for obscenity/pornography, which will make any attempt to ban only "pornographic" materials of any kind very difficult. Justice Potter Stewart's famous, "I know it when I see it" phrase sums up the futility of finding a specific definition as it seems to open up the door for different interpretations. A too broad definition risks censoring those whose works have artistic merit, that challenge and push the boundaries of thought which can enhance fields of knowledge.
This was a pretty good paper which addresses this issue. Interesting to read how many feminists support censoring pornography but than there are other feminists who oppose censorship. You would think that they'd be on the same side.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/
2007-01-30 15:17:20 · answer #6 · answered by uness 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that there are definitely books that should be banned in grade school, but by high school age....kids should be old enuff to make their own choices.
For a puclic library...no books should be banned.
2007-01-30 14:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by KarenS 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
banned books?!?! what!?!? books shouldn't be banned, who's to say what people might and might not enjoy? but personally, if i wrote a book and it got banned i would be like cool....
2007-01-30 15:16:06 · answer #8 · answered by YahooAnswers 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Books should not be banned.
2007-01-30 14:11:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Books should not be banned.
2007-01-30 14:06:07 · answer #10 · answered by looloo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋