One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups.
Censorship can be used to protect others like when a parent doesn 't let their children watch or read something. A parent might not want their kids to be exposed to some materials like blood and gore or many other graphic materials to keep them from being scarred for life. There have been some restrictions to try and correct this problem. One solution to this problem is,"imposing age limits on media that may be inappropriate for children. "("Censorship") This can happen whenever kids want to watch movies.
First we should define censorship in order to discuss its effects and purposes. The Oxford English Dictionary defines censorship as, “The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.” In this case we are mostly concerned with the censorship of “politically unacceptable” literature. However, Anaya states that reasons such as vulgarity can be used as excuses to ban politically challenging literature. This is not good because it provides an opportunity for people to censor works they do not like for political reasons.
In conclusion, Dana Gioia expressed his dissatisfaction of literature, by proclaiming the product of not reading is detrimental to young people. He persuaded his readers by stating the disadvantages of not submerging themselves in literature is only going to make their life more complicated. Reading is not awful nor is it harmful, but not reading can be harmful according to Gioia. Young adults and children need to read and gain the attributes and knowledge that comes with
According to the article “The First Amendment: Censorship,” speech is routinely censored due to bias, or personal issues with the content (First Amendment, 3). Also, in the article “Censorship Goes to School,” Nancy Day discusses how advocates for removing “hurtful and dangerous” books believe that they are protecting children, and that is more important than access to free speech (Day, 4). Because integrity in education is important, teachers should stay within the bounds and follow the requirements of education (First Amendment, 2). Author Zibby O’Neal said “We try to teach young people the first amendment rights, but then deny them a book” about repeated efforts to ban The Chocolate War (Day, 3). You would think the people who educate would be open minded, they are actually the most critical (Censorship, 2).
In conclusion, the novel Catcher in the Rye should be banned because of its inappropriate and sexual topics. It should also be banned because Holden is fit to be a role model in the highschool environment and can possibly influence them in the wrong way. The novel does have characteristics to be fit for our curriculum but the moral it teaches are weak compared to that of other
The Importance of Individuality “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Ray Bradbury’s famous quote shows that while differences are disliked by many people, persuading people to be the same is like destroying a culture, eliminating the possibility of future developments. Can being different possibly save a life? While many people see individuality and differences as embarrassing, it is an important part of human life. In The Book Thief by Markus Zusak and A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle, the characters discover that it is harmful to hide from their differences.
However, there are people that argue against the idea of censoring books in schools. One counterpoint of the argument of the topic is that banning books hinders students from discovering new things and obtaining knowledge. According to the article, “Banning Books: An Overview”, Michael Aliprandini and Carolyn Sprague state, “The core arguments against the banning of books have been based on protecting the rights of individuals to free speech as well as to promote intellectual freedom – the rights protected by the First Amendment.” They are basically explaining how arguments of book banning connect to the idea of intellectual freedom and protecting individual rights, which are implied in the First Amendment. Censorship of books can be expressed as violating the rights and freedom of the individuals. Boyd and Bailey support this idea of intellectual freedom by presenting how banning books in schools with the quote from their journal, “Censors evoke barriers to free thought and speech when they block knowledge acquisition, intellectual development, as well as creative and critical thinking…” (Boyd and Bailey,
Books can create portals to different life experiences and encourage reading. A few schools and libraries have challenged the educational value of some books, however, therefore leading them to eventually be prohibited in a particular place. Each reason may be different depending on the book and the location of the exclusions. Books are icons of literature and their value should outshine the occasionally offensive topic. Be that as it may, there are multiple reasons why books should be taught and included in a curriculum.
The idea of Censorship and book banning is to protect the youth from potentially harmful ideas or thoughts, but some would argue that in doing so it goes against the First Amendment rights. On one side of this argument we have people who disagree that books should be banned.