The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Should be Banned From Schools In school are students supposed to learn about bad language and how to treat people poorly?The fiction novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain should be removed from schools. Twain writes about serious topics as a satire so many people do not realize the intensity. The language, alcoholism, violence, lying, and breaking the law are a few reasons for this novel to be banned from schools. Mark Twain writes about many questionable subjects but does so as a satire which makes it slightly more acceptable. Huck has good morals and is very openminded.
Classic well-known books such as Harry Potter, Slaughterhouse Five, along with many other books have been banned. Books should not be banned from any school or library. People buy books simply because they have been outlawed, children should be exposed to the real life situations that books can offer them, and people should be able to read what they want. These are the reasons that banning books is controversial. People buy books because they have been banned.
However, plenty of parents feel [look at article to see the support of book banning] that certain ideas should not be taught to their children, especially when the ideas conflict with their personal beliefs and interests. Plenty of parents have succeeded in removing these subjectively distasteful books from their children’s school’s shelves and reading lists but concerns about what book banning actually does to the students who aren’t allowed to read them have arisen. Paul Ringer, author of “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children," states that, “When we say, ‘This book is inappropriate,’ we’re telling those children ‘your situation … your family … your life is inappropriate.” Banning books sends the wrong message to those who share experiences with the topic of the book and shelters the themes from students who may need them. While parental concerns and opinions about
At one point in time, over 7,220 books have been challenged to be banned. Though these books have been removed for the safety of children, not all books should be banned for many reasons. These include the fact that banning books is infringing on the First Amendment, keeping children from understanding the real world, and, even though there are many reasons for book banning, not banning books could help a student’s education and can even work against itself. Banning a book from a school or public library could go against a person’s First Amendment of the freedom of press. The First Amendment states, “…abridging the freedom of speech or of press…” When a book is banned, it is denying the freedom of an author to express him or herself and is denying a person the right to access that book.
Although some people believe that being gay is wrong and that it should be “corrected”, when it comes to the rights of children and their right/s (?) to express their sexuality, parents should not be able to control their children’s same-sex attraction by sending them to conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, the methods used are evidently damaging to children, and the ex-gay movement is posing a large threat to the LGBT community. Parents should not be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy because doing so is an infringement on a child 's basic rights, it is unconstitutional, and minors (below 18 years of age) deserve the right to make certain decisions for themselves. (?) It should be banned on a national level
Huck fights with himself against everything that he has been taught, even going so far as to agree to eternal damnation in order to save Jim. If that to you is the wrong kind of message to be sending to our children, then by all means continue with your motion to the school board. I surely hope that you and your organization do not actually think that way, that a book that fights against slavery and evil norms of a corrupt society, is something that we should not teach our
In his argument, Balmer fails to respond to Matthew 5:31 where Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of abuse. Instead, he focuses on the fact that Christians now “accept” divorce. Does studying divorce rates among Christians truly refute the Biblical position on divorce? If it did, it would mean if a Christian lied or stole, the Bible would support lying and stealing. People cannot evaluate the character of Jesus by a person who claims to follow Jesus as many Christians fall susceptible to sin and deviate from the Bible.
Several books have been banned because they are pro-communists. People don’t think that this topic should be allowed for their children to read in schools. But the champion among challenged or banned books is probably “Catcher in the Rye”: “obscene,” “blasphemous and undermines morality,” “centered around negative activity,” “anti-white,” “a filthy, filthy book” (What Are You Doing for Banned Books Week?). Catcher in the Rye has been banned multiple times just because of its’ profanity. It is considered a filthy book that consists of negative thoughts.
The pros of being against book banning is the First Amendment, parental control, and true facts and occurrences. The cons of being against book banning is that the works contain offensive and racist material, parents cannot control what their children learn at school, and the true facts and events that promote bad influence. People should not support book banning because the First Amendment supports the freedom of speech and the press. In the past the Roman Catholic Church began the practice of book banning. The author provides information that reads, “In the sixteenth century the Roman Catholic Church began keeping a list of prohibited books.
Some people may say that cyberbullying outside of school is not the schools problem and can violate some rights. In Source B, the source was about how schools had no authority to discipline a child for harassment off-campus. The constitution states that, “Congress should make no aww.. Abridging the freedom of speech” which states that they cannot punish you for something that is in the constitution. Courts ruled that a school could not discipline a student for inappropiate off-campus student speech. (Source B) It also states that some students and parents have successfully argued that cyberbullies violated civil or criminal laws by inflicting a hate crime.
This approach may seem very plausible due to the nature of the case being mainly based on child negligence. But this does have a downside. Both the authorities who are writing the report and the child protective services fall under the state. If the state exempts the parents’ action due to religious expression, then CPS and the police must restrain their ability to do anything about