Argumentative Essay: Banning Certain Books

As United States citizens, we have the right of freedom of expression; the First Amendment of the United States constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press…" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). As this concerns books, people should have the freedom to choose what they want to read and what they don't want to read. By banning books, our basic rights as US citizens are abused. Book banning affects many different people, from the people who read books to the people who write them. Why do

Most who argue against censorship believe that it goes against a person’s right to freedom of speech. Within this argument, most people wonder “just when, and on what grounds, the state is justified in using its coercive powers to limit the freedom of individuals” (West). When thinking in this mindset, individuals tend to antagonize the government, because they come to believe that it suppresses their individuality and fail to consider the fact that it unites people who share its similar beliefs. As a result of the recent spike in technology and use of the Internet, the public must continually alter its definition of freedom of speech and expression. As the media offers more and more methods of communication, many of which are relatively self-regulated by users, more methods of expression develop, which may render other forms of expression obsolete, or even socially unacceptable (Qazi). Without understanding how much freedom of speech one is entitled to, one may never hope to defend that freedom if it ever comes under attack. Because technology develops so quickly that one definition will hardly suffice for a short period of time, people will find it increasingly difficult to understand how much right to expression they are allowed and will therefore fight for any and all that they may attain, never considering the benefits of censorship in the slightest. In America especially, people idealize the idea of democracy, the investigation of truth, and independence (Fieser). In

By banning books, it shields children from what the real world is really like. Going through life without knowing what its really going to be like once you grow and are officially on their own can damage a child rather than helping them. Every parent tries to do what they think is right for their children and sometimes they can end up hurting them more. Books should not be banned from society. Even though some books have suggestive content or profanity does not mean that you should take out so-called negativity because your children gain knowledge of what’s right, wrong and how to act. Books shouldn’t be banned from society. Books are some peoples way to escape reality for just a single moment.While books shouldn’t be banned from society, some have a lot of profanity. Banning those books would be taking away citizens rights through the First Amendment.

“A word to the unwise. Torch every book. Char every page. Burn every word to ash. Ideas are incombustible. And therein lies your real fear.” Ellen Hopkins. The government in this society is burning all of the knowledge. The books may be burnt but ideas and your imagination are unretrievable, that can be passed down through generations. The government has the real fear. Censorship is bad and takes away from your imagination and creativity.

The subject of censorship is a very controversial one, especially the banning of books. Many people believe they must protect themselves and others from the "evils" of many classic books and works of art because they can be deemed "indecent" in one way or another. Many believe that this is absurd and censorship in its current form is a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech. Personally, I align myself with the latter, however I do feel there are occasions where censorship is justifiable. The censorship of books is a division of censorship that, apart from Internet censorship, receives the most publicity. Banning books is the most popular form of such censorship. Many banned books are literary classics, such as The Catcher in

How many of you have heard of the book The Lord of the Rings? Or how about Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone? Did you know that at one point in time for some reason or another these books were banned? They even banned a childhood classic Where The Wild things Are (TeenVogue.com). Even here in Pasco county Books like Looking for Alaska and Perks Of Being A Wallflower were banned from all school library shelves. The fact is since nineteen eighty two eleven thousand three hundred books have been banned due to violence, negativity or political bias. In my opinion banning books is detrimental to the education process. Schools should not be allowed to ban books because this takes great works of literature away from young adults. There are many

The practice of the censorship of books in schools has been prevalent due to the explicit content of them. Parents have been complaining to schools about books that count as required reading because they disapprove with the points made in the book. If a book consists of offensive or sexually explicit material, then parents would challenge the schools about them in order to prevent their children from reading them. Censorship in general has been an intensely debated issue because it is considered an infringement to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution while others argue it is used to conceal inappropriate things (Aliprandini and Sprague). The banning of books in school curriculum has also been debated since parents see

Imagine one person controlling everything in your life. Even they decide what you are allowed to read, write, or watch. No one’s opinion would matter anymore, because if one person doesn't like a certain thing, they completely ban it, and it basically never exists again. One’s person decision to ban a book, could be taken a completely different way, on how parents, librarians, or even I feel about it.

Is it necessary for schools to ban books just because some parents don’t like what their child is reading in English class? The topic of banned books has generated a lot of argument for both the viewpoint of schools not banning books because of the harmful content, and the opposing viewpoint of schools banning books because they have harmful or offensive content. The viewpoint of not banning books in schools because of the content is stronger, because banning some books that might have some hurtful content in them, the ability to learn a valuable lesson. Banning books also takes away children’s freedom of reading what they want. While there are many other main ideas to support the viewpoint of not banning books in schools, by banning the books that have potentially hurtful content, the chance to learn important lessons is lost. This is the reason found to be the most effective.

In the 19th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the United Nations says that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations/Universal Declaration of Human Rights/ Dec 10th, 1948). This means that all people should be able to read information and generate their own opinions on it. Those who attempt censorship are “concerned,” and believe “that censorship can improve society, protect children, and restore what the censor sees as lost moral values” (American Library Association/ Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A/ August 31, 2015). However, the United Nations supports the right of all individuals to make their own judgements about the morality or merit of books, rather than allowing censors to make these distinctions for

A novelist, John Mortimer, once said “I suppose that writers should, in a way, feel flattered by the censorship laws. They show a primitive fear and dread at the fearful magic of print.” John Mortimer thinks that in most of the writer’s books, it shows a bit of too much truth and meaning that could cause people to express differently of the books and others. In addition to his words, the way the government works, and how society may take its toll on themselves or several people slowly of what they really feel about the situation. Just like in “Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury, the government chooses to forbid books and reading the contents of it, since they have a perspective of no fighting, no conflicts, and disagreements within the

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

Being an artist regardless of the medium is all about creativity. Allowing someone step in to enforce rules strips away that creativity. Art is about expressing thoughts and feelings stifling creativity can be detrimental to one's health. People are encouraged throughout life to be creative. Only to be censored by someone if their art is deemed inappropriate is absurd! Igniting that flame, then removing it in the same breath because some might find its offense is counterproductive.

Proponents of censorship seem to believe that they alone can determine what is and isn’t offensive to everyone. They believe that their own freedom of speech will remain intact when they have successfully silenced those that they oppose. They don’t seem to understand that once one group’s rights are taken away, we are all subject to loss of our constitutional right to speak and think freely.

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.