Book Banning Essay

Each year, libraries across the United States report hundreds of challenges. The leading causes for contesting a track record are sexually explicit subject matter, offensive language and conflicting subjects for minors source American Library Association. Only a minority of the requests very appoint it through to throw outning the withstand from its respective library. The Catcher in the Rye. The Scarlet Letter. Huckleberry Finn. Harry Potter. The Diary of Anne Frank. Animal Farm. To overcome a Mockingbird.The Da Vinci Code. The Grapes of Wrath. These literary classics rich person been vital to the education of many, peculiarly boorren and adolescents. These great novels twain teach important values and get up children slightly ball affairs and classic themes. Unfortunately, each of these novels has been outlaw at iodine point in time. Many of these classic stories have been banned because of sexual references, racial slurs, sacred intolerance, or supposed witchcraf t promotion.Although somewhat may consider these books polemic or inappropriate, many English classes have required us to withdraw these books. Like the teachers that assigned us these books, I see that even argu equal books can ultimately boost, non deter, our educational wealth. I oppose book banning for three main reasons. low, I believe that education should be adequate to(p) to everyone. Everyone should have an opportunity to read any literature of their choosing and fig his or her bear opinions based on the reading.Micah Issitt lists three basic salutarys cover under the freedom of the press the right to publish, the right to confidentiality of sources, and the right of citizens to retrieve the products of the press. My second reason specifically addresses the last right stating that citizens should have accession to the press. The government should not restrict books from being published or put in into personal affairs as this is an infringement of the First Am endment. Finally, I believe that evokes should monitor what their take children read, still not have the authority to ban other(a) children from reading these novels.For these reasons, I conclude that the government should play no role in the issue what citizens do and do not read, and that book restriction should remain a solely private matter. At for the first time glance, the debate over banning books appears unimportant. Nevertheless, this debate has divided our nation into those who raise censoring books to nurture their impressionable adolescents, and those who argue that education should be open for everybody without interference from the government in restricting the publishing and accessing of these books.Issitt argues that censoring books violates the First Amendment, stating that citizens must be free to seek out any media, heedless of content, that they deem appropriate for entertainment, info, or education. Denying the rights of the consumer, in any area, is on e of the hallmarks of authoritarianism. objet dart I do not equate banning books with authoritarianism, we do evidence Issitts belief that individual citizens have the right to choose, under their own discretion, what books to read.The First Amendment protects the freedom of expression and speech, and by prohibiting certain messages, the government clear infringes upon man rights. On the other hand, Healey claims that security review does not repress information that teenagers and children are exposed to, but merely gives parents the rights to educate their children in the slipway they deem appropriate. Though I concede that parents do have the right to monitor what their children read, they do not have the right to remove books from public libraries or monitor what other children in the city read.Healey attempts to persuade readers that censorship of books should not be closely silencing voices on important proceedss, but about steering young people toward the best possibl e literature however, she fails to trammel what constitutes as the best possible literature. Some of the best possible literatures in addition happen to cause the most controversy, including Huck Finn, Harry Potter, The Scarlet Letter, and To Kill a Mockingbird. Those who protest against these books have clearly not studied them in depth.For example, the main theme in Huckleberry Finn focuses not on advocating racism, as some suggest, but proving that race does not define a persons intelligence or capability for compassion. Even Healey admits that concerned parents and community members contradict without taking the time to closely investigate the books they want banned. While I agree that parents should play an active role in educating their children and as their basal guardians, have the effective right to monitor what their children read, I disagree that this legal right ex disposes to controlling what other children in the neighborhood read as well.Prohibiting children fr om reading a book will not enhance their righteous values. Rather, banning a book more likely will sum up curiosity for reading it. I also empathize with parents who ban books with disputable or uncomfortable subjects because they are unsure as to how their children will counterbalance or how to explain such topics. A good way to contend these subjects with children is to read books with various views on the subject so that children can get wind multiple points of view before forming their own opinions.Healey herself agrees that such a system might help young people better understand the world they live in, the human condition, and issues they face in their culture. As Healey stated, parents also tend to ban books based on moral grounds, although some books have been condemned for their perspectives on civic values and hi study. For this very reason, the general public should read these books. Our society, especially our younger children, needs to read these books since fu lly understanding a topic requires knowledge of both sides.If we choose to dis catch even a exceedingly unpopular opinion, we intentionally choose to live in ignorance, except part educated in a topic we claim to know so well. Without a doubt, if we continue to ban books and ignore what some consider prohibited topics, we hinder ourselves and our children from finding ways to solve societys problems, therefrom hampering the development of our nation as a whole. Many conservative sorts make the careen that the books that have been banned have material that is inappropriate, immoral or contradicting the beliefs they have ingrained in their children and/or their society.Take for consideration the polemical books that tackle difficult, touchy social issues like homosexuality. Books like Heather Has twain Mommies, by Leslea Newman and Daddys Roommate by Michael Willhoite (both books written for juvenility with gay parents) were shot down by conservative assemblages because the y attempted to educate children about homosexuality, an issue parents felt needed to be taught to their respective children by them. While this may seem like a valid argument, really it is just skirting around the actualissue. Book-banning cases usually concern the security measure of children and their innocence, but all that is happening is sheltering parents showing an awkward avoidance of their childrens confrontation with uncomfortable matters. It is not only selfish, but also perverting to the overall education of their children. This act of prohibiting books is just the parents way of evading of the conversation with their child about these sensitive issues.These two books are issues that Healey brings up in her argument on how groups were upset about the way these books informed their children of homosexuality. Homosexuality and other touchy social issues are part of everyday life, and for a group to attempt to censor this subject from younger society is almost imbecile t hese issues are not monstrous and the censorship of them not only shows disadvantage but lack of respect. forbidding books seems to be the most public base for a private matter- not everyone should have to suffer restrictions because one group feels uncomfortable with the book.That being said, there are often books that contain pictorial and often highly inappropriate material I do combine that these books should be censored at the discretion of the parent, or anyone involved however, no one is forcing books upon others, so we should not be forced to remove them. some other groups would say that its also the duty of the government to regulate these books to protect concerned citizens and their families, but I would have to disagree. Its the exact mated of the governments role- our private lives, the books we read, should be regulated and controlled by us.Banning books from public congregations is not what the government was intended to do. Topics that seem socially interdict in public, let alone published, have been banned because their immoral content may have a negative effect on younger children. In these books, authors doesnt promote or encourage bad behaviors, they get their readers for some of the real world challenges. The child would never be able to learn these things if the book was banned, nor be able to form his or her own opinion about that certain topic.Healey discusses that the book, 33 Snowfish, a dark story of three teenage runaways who are victims of various forms of abuse by exaltation Rapp may be an unsuitable way to educate children on these well timed(p) topics. However, having these stories banned all together would just further shelter a child whose parents may not be willing to discuss these issues with them at all. Even though these books center around scary topics, they are educating children on real life matters that they will be exposed to once they fortuity into the world themselves.Healey goes on to make the point th at the books should not be banned as well, since it is a matter of private opinion not one to be made by the public libraries of a community. She suggests that schools should inform parents about the kinds of books they offer children in their libraries and classrooms instead of banning them. With the knowledge that some of these books have to offer, children can learn how not to act and what can be the consequences if they do misbehave. This learning experience could turn around with the help of a parent and pass a positive affect over the child.Clearly, banning books not only hinders a childs educational development but also leaves them unaware of the true state of the world. Books do not hardly impart general information they heavily influence a child, the future tense generation. Without regular access to books, both adults and children could not form sound opinions, only narrow-minded ones. Both advocates and opposers of book banning agree that books are goodish instruments. Otherwise, a debate on the subject would neither have arisen nor lasted so long. Because books can be used toinculcate values and transmit ideology, and to hassle the imagination, as Healey suggests, any person should remain free to select his or her reading material. This personal issue of selecting reading material has no sexual relation to the government. On the contrary, government action interferes with individual education, a primary American value. Ultimately, children can learn personal responsibility in determining which books to regard and which to discard. In the future, these children will become well-educated adults who can benefit the American society. -