should books be banned? yes or no? why?

Question

Is for a research paper i need to do. I need to know why books SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be banned?
I need your opinions and good reasons....

Answer 1

Two good references to learn about book banning:
"The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch
"What Are They Teaching Our Children?" by Mel and Norma Gabler
Arguments for the banning, from the political left:
The book portrays stereotypes (i.e. an African American playing sports).
The book portrays racism, sexism, any -ism you can think of.
The book contains language that suggests stereotypes and/or -isms.
Test samples cannot use certain passages. If a test involves reading a passage and then answering questions about it, the passage cannot contain gender/racial/social/environmental/etc.-specific language. An example would be one of Hawaiian students not being allowed to read about deserts, because there are no deserts in Hawaii.
Counterarguments:
To portray a stereotype, one must accept the stereotype as being true. That is, if I say, "Asians can never be portrayed as good at math, because that is a stereotype," I have just accepted the stereotype that Asians are good at math.
The work is either fiction, in which case any 'foul' language is used for some specific purpose, such as displaying a character, or non-fiction, in which case we are learning about some event in history or in present times, which means it is necessary for our understanding of the situation.
To reject passages based on some geographical specific element is to stop children from learning about anything outside of their own world. If Hawaiian children don't learn about deserts, but are instead 'learning' about volcanos, they aren't 'learning' anything other than what they already know. The quest for knowledge in these individuals ends when they learn everything about their immediate surroundings. In short, kids become informed about themselves only, and are closed to the world.
Banning from the political right:
Graphic sex/violence/language/etc.
Anti-government/religious/etc. statements.
Inspires thinking for one's self (critical thinking).
Counterargue:
I concede, with limits. Certain content is inappropriate for certain age levels (in terms of developed mind, not physical age). A young child should not be subjected to Nabokov's "Lolita," due to sexual content that they would not understand nor be able to handle. However, no book should be banned from the overall populace on such grounds.
Anti-superior statements and critical thinking go together. If we ban critical thinking, people take what they see at face value. Hence, any anti-superior statements would be seen as helpful advice. In this case, it would be easy to start rebellions and riots. Banning critical thinking would make it not just advisable, but necessary, to ban anti-superior works. But if we keep critical thinking around, people will have the knowledge to sort through the propoganda given. Keep critical thinking, as it is our way to ensure those above us are not abusing us or taking advantage of us.
Ban from both sides:
'Offensive' in some way.
Counterargue:
Everything is offensive in some way. It is impossible to please every person in the world or nation all at once. If someone is offended by something, it is their fault. Words are just symbols (letters) arranged in some fashion. The letter-symbols become word-symbols, representing something different to every person. If you see the words 'That is a hot car,' you might think the car has been sitting in the sun and is overly heated. Someone else might think you are describing the physical attractiveness of the vehicle. Another person might think the car is stolen. To different people, based on their different histories, words mean different things. To ban something because it offends someone doesn't keep us equal. It makes the offended even stronger. If I can't say "Martians look like boogers," because the Martians get offended, it limits the words I can use. A Martian could still say they look like boogers, which keeps their vocabulary larger than mine. But in my language, a booger is an essential item in the process of breathing--mucus that collects inhaled dust. My saying that Martians look like boogers simply means they look very important. Banning my statement shames me, empowers the Martians, and all because people don't want to offend someone. Sure, it was rude of me to word it in that way, knowing that the Martians would probably take offense.
Unless it's propoganda distributed to the ignorant, banning will be the downfall of a nation. Of course, one must then wonder why we ever became so ignorant that propoganda works on us.

Answer 2

Books should not be banned.
It should be up to the reader if they like it or not.
Nobody knows what's good for me except me.
It's censorship. Nobody ever has or ever will tell me what I can or cannot read. If a book is banned and I'm interested in it I will find it regardless.
IMO, people who try to get books banned have way too much time on their hands and would be wise to Mind Their Own Business before something they enjoy becomes banned also.
Censorship should be banned.

Answer 3

As a school librarian I have a definite bias against banning books because:

1.. Our Constitution gives us freedom of expression.

2. Ideas only become scary when people fear free expression.

3. There is always more than one way to look at an issue...think of abortion for example. Whether a particular writer writes for or against abortion, both have the right to be in print...and often there are more than two sides to any issue.

4. Even sex in literature has it's place as art and expression. The dividing line between art and pornography is often in the eye of the beholder, and what was racy for one generation becomes commonplace for another. Imagine trying to public Lolita for the first time in 2007!!! It would be considered boring I think!

5. Banning books puts librarians in interesting situations. We who advocate reading, must now put a certain item behind the desk where it can only be read if asked for. I was once ordered to do just this for Mad magazine. It made it the most-requested item in the library...and students who otherwise would have ignored it had to see what was so terrible. The middle school students concluded the adults who ordered this were totally dorks.

Answer 4

There are some books I wouldn't hand to a Junior High School or Elementary School student, but that doesn't mean they should be banned. It would be easier just to put them in a back corner of the library, on the bottom shelf. Keep in mind that all books were written from the POV of the era that the writer lived in. All the common objections I hear for "Tom Sawyer" and "Huckleberry Finn" have to do with language that was normal for the time, some of which is considered politically incorrect and even offensive now.

Answer 5

Books being banned would lead to utter ruin, well actually I can't say that because there are so many in the world that it would be impossible to destroy them all. But I would have to say no they ought not be banned because with books, history can be recorded and with history we are able to prepare for the future. Through history we can look at the mistakes of the past and learn from them, and if they are written down, they are less likely to be twisted. For example, have you ever played that game called telephone? Well, and if you are saying we should only read things on the internet, I also disagree there because long exposure to the computer screen is bad for the eyes, and computers are not the most reliable, they may just shut down when the power goes out and lose all of the information. But that is just my opinion.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. Peoples work, ideas, and imaginations aren't things to be messed with. Your talking about peoples creativity. Sure, theres books on how to grow pot, all about sex, all about political conflict, and etc... Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the others are with you. Everyone has the freedom to think and speak anything. If they want to get it published then so be it. By the way, some of the greatest books ever written were banned books:


The Catcher In The Rye
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Of Mice and Men
The Giver
A Wrinkle In Time
The Anarchist Cookbook
Slaughterhouse Five
Lord Of The Flies

Answer 7

You been reading Farenheit 451? It's by Ray Bradbury and if this research paper isn't based on that and if you haven't read it, you definitely definitely should. It's about a society where books are banned. There are so many good arguements in it for why and why not (and it's a damn good book to).

Personally, knowledge is power. I wouldn't want to loose that power, but i can see why some leaders would want to ban books because of that. Without books though, where would we be? We wouldn't learn anything except what is spoon-fed us on television.

Answer 8

Censorship is horrible. I wrote a research paper about this too. I'm not gonna help you a lot because, let's be honest, this is your assignment, not mine. But check out the First Amendment...also you could mention how keeping books from people 1) makes them want to read them more and 2) just keeps people naive. One of my favourite quotes is "Every burned book enlightens the world" by Emerson. The ALA website (http://www.ala.org) has a list of the 100 Most Challenged Books from 1990-2000. Maybe that could be helpful if you can find anything about why they're challenged by researching them. Hope this helps without giving too much information to make it too easy for you :o)

Answer 9

I am opposed to the banning of books.
Any individual can make personal choices of what she/he will or will not read. Parents can make these decisions for their children until the children are old enough to make their own choices.
No individual, however, has the right to have a book banned from a library, or removed from a reading list, or banished from a classroom.
Too often books are banned for frivolous or downright ridiculous reasons (Harry Potter promoting witchcraft, for instance, or 'Twelfth Night' because one of the characters involved in the romantic entanglements is disguised as a boy). Sometimes they are banned because people misunderstood the book or took passages completely out of context and away from the author's intent. 'Huckleberry Finn' and "To Kill A Mockingbird' are examples.
The only up side of such censorship is that banning a book usually gets people interested in it. My students had very little interest in 'Catcher In The Rye' until I added it to our 'Banned Books We Have Read' list.

Answer 10

Do you mean books in general or specific books? It makes a difference. Books in general should not be banned. There are some specific books which should never have been written and should never be read. They do not add to human knowledge and are not entertaining. There are very, very few books which should be banned, but they do exist.

I chose not to name the books because that would only promote others to seek them. Such very specific censorship can also be applied to fliers of related material. If you don't know to what I am referring, then consider yourselves better off.