Banning Books

[Alexi]

Should books be banned in public schools? If so, which ones? And where do we draw the line?

I think books shouldn't be banned at all, though that's a bit extreme. However, I also happen to think banning books such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird simply because they feature the n-word, especially as those particular books speak out against racism.

Other opinions?

(also: if anyone could link to pro-banning articles, that would be very much appreciated. I personally can't seem to find any that are beyond extreme conservatives being ridiculous.)

 

[Zhorken]

However, I also happen to think banning books such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird simply because they feature the n-word, especially as those particular books speak out against racism.

That sentence is missing something somewhere.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

Lord, I hate when people do this. Anyone read 'The Giver' by Lois Lowry? Then you'll be shocked to hear that it has been banned in some places for, among other things, promoting euthenasia! In the book, said injection is done on a baby, and is portrayed as a horrible deed. Sometimes I think that these people just don't even deserve to be allowed to read books.

mini-rant over

Anyway, yeah, yeah, banning books is wrong. I owuld probably be behind some sort of ratings system, like they do with movies, video games, and t.v.

 

[foreign contaminant]

i don't see why we should.

.. i can't at all write a competent reason for my statement at the moment. some of the books that get challenged (1984, brave new world, catcher in the rye) are pretty important, i think. they're representative of the past, and i think they must still stand, in order for us to better understand how it could have been back then..

 

[Peter Shadeslayer]

Banning books is ridiculous. I cannot see in any way why someone would ban The Giver. Babies dying is not something we can't handle. They imply that we can't handle the hard facts.

 

[opaltiger]

I think books shouldn't be banned at all, though that's a bit extreme

Why (is it extreme)?

 

[Bluberry Bat]

(also: if anyone could link to pro-banning articles, that would be very much appreciated. I personally can't seem to find any that are beyond extreme conservatives being ridiculous.)

I really think this sums it up, really. There ARE no reasons that aren't extreme or ridiculous, it's just a bunch of hooting morons who are oooh soooo offended at yet another piece of our evolving society.
As far as I'm concerned there is never an adequate reasoning for banning any book.

 

[Creasy]

Why (is it extreme)?

"Public schools should ban no book."

In other words:

"The state should [be able to] give children open access to pornography, hate speech, suicide manuals, The Anarchist Cookbook, etc."

(I agree with both phrasings.)

 

[spaekle]

"The state should [be able to] give children open access to pornography, hate speech, suicide manuals, The Anarchist Cookbook, etc."

I can't see any of those things being studied as assignments (except for maybe hate speech if it's used as an example for history class), but it's not like they can't get hold of them places besides school. :v

Most of the books that I've seen get banned were for pretty stupid reasons. Catcher in the Rye, for example, had the F word maybe three times near the end and that was it as far as objectionable stuff goes, unless you consider some kid whining about life obscene. And it wasn't like the book was really glorifying the use of the word or anything. I understand that that (and the general point of view that the book expresses) might have been scandalous!!! back in the 50's, but to still have it banned today is pretty ridiculous. (Although I'm not sure if it is anywhere; I read it for class...)

And I'm not even going to start on when they feel the need to ban things like And Tango Makes Three.

Basically, if a teacher feels that there is some sort of important message that a book can give, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to teach it. Allow an alternative assignment for students who may find it objectionable if you want, but to skip it entirely because of content that 9 times out of 10 is only a big deal to uptight soccer moms?

 

[ultraviolet]

Catcher in the Rye wtf? Why on earth would that be banned? I mean yeah there's a prostitute and alcohol and stuff but it's not promoting it or anything, not by a long shot.
I can understand why people would want to ban Brave New World (as sex is a recurring theme) but honestly it's not even glorified. :<
In Australia I can't think of many ridiculous books that are banned. :F

"The state should [be able to] give children open access to pornography, hate speech, suicide manuals, The Anarchist Cookbook, etc."

I don't like the idea of banning books in public schools unless they contain material that isn't situationally appropriate and provide no educational value (i.e. pornography, suicide manuals). Hate Speech is of course educational if you're studying something like politics or sociology. While I don't think that the Anarchist Bookbook is educational (or likely to be unbanned, given the sensitivity worldwide about terrorism and its dangerous nature) it's so easy to get on the internet anyway that it seems to be a moot point.

 

[Dewgong]

banning books has always bothered me, for probably the same reasons that people are going to say, or have already said. i think everybody should be able to read whatever book they want without it being banned. well if it's something completely useless like porn or something that really has no place in a school.

 

[Eclipse]

Sure, let's ban all books going against religion, government, society, etc. and make what happened in Fahrenheit 451 all come true. |:

... Okay, well banning is another way of censoring, and free-speech is a right most people would promote. So banning is really not supposed to be in countries that have free-speech, thus another reason why banning is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Dewgong]

there's been dictionaries banned from schools because they contained a few "objectionable" words. seriously, a dictionary. :|

 

[J.T.]

Hell, at one point Fahrenheit 451 was banned in one state in the U.S. I can't remember which one, but they claimed it was because of the use of "goddamn", which is the worst excuse imaginable.

Anyway, no, I don't agree with banning books. What everyone else said, basically.

 

[Autumn]

I read a book last year with instances of the word "fuck" and sexual references (as in, some of the characters were actually having sex in a tent, within hearing range of all of the other characters).

for school.

It was a nonfiction, and probably completely worthless to the curriculum, too. :x

 

[Saith]

So wait, we're gonna start... Banning people then?!?!?!

Okay um, I disagree with censorship in, like, anything. Really. I mean, I guess if a book actually promotes certain things in a way that isn't educational. Sorta like how Twilight promotes extreme sexi- *shot*
No, but if the point of a work of fiction is that black people suck, or that all the Jews need to die, then I guess maybe you should need, like, permission from the teacher or something?
To be honest I don't really care about this much, as it probably won't happen here (though it probably already has). Hell, even our conservative party isn't that extreme.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Hell, even our conservative party isn't that extreme.

The American Conservative/Republican party is on par with any third world country's as far as radicalism goes hth

edit: whenever I scroll down on the main page I keep reading this as 'Burning Books'

 

[Dannichu]

Sometimes I wish bookshops didn't stock erotic fiction, but that's only because when I go shopping with my sister and I spend too long in a bookshop, she'll start reading graphic sex scenes aloud until I agree to leave/we get kicked out.

I think it's quite nifty that it's totally up to the reader to decide what content they'd like to read (or avoid), but the only warning they have as to things like, I dunno, drug use or rape, is just from the blurb, which often doesn't warn that the book has stuff like drug use or rape in.

For example, I quite like that manga has age recommendations on the back; (as far as I'm aware) anyone can buy manga with any rating, but the rating system advises the reader as to what kind of content to expect within the book (of course, I'm a moron and thought that I'd be totally okay with the Battle Royale manga and then the violence was so graphic I was physically sick, and I'll say again: I'm a moron).

 

[spaekle]

(as far as I'm aware) anyone can buy manga with any rating,

I got carded for a volume of Death Note once. :| I mean, the lady let me have it after I told her I was 16 (at the time), but seriously?

Speaking of which, the way Viz rates their manga is really ridiculous. I really don't think Reborn, Death Note, and Angel Sanctuary should all have the same rating.

 

[Kurai]

I think that sometimes the people who ban books just read the blurb on the back looking for certain "keywords". Like "Flowers For Algernon", for example. It's a great book, it even made me cry sometimes; I'm really enjoying reading it. (I could get it at my school library, though, because my school's cool like that.:sunglasses:)