In your Exploring Language reader, read the essay "The Freedom to Read" by the American Library Association on page 446; afterwards read Jeff Jacoby's essay "Book-Banning, Real and Imaginary" on page 451. After reading these two essays and pondering deeply about the situation, respond to the first writing assignment on page 453:
"Is censorship of written materials ever permissible? If so, under what conditions? If not, why not?" Write out your response to this as a comment on this blog post OR respond to a comment somebody else has already made. However, if you do respond to a comment, make sure you're not just saying "Yeah I agree". Either point to specific points you disagree with and why, or support the points being made with your own examples. Try and comment by Sunday afternoon so that people have time to comment. Also, feel free to comment more than once if you really have something to say. As you work on this, think about how the authors make and support their arguments. We'll be working out of Exploring Language for Essay #3, the classical argument, and we'll be talking a lot about what makes a good argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading "The Freedom to Read" and "Book-Banning, Real and Imaginary" I decided that censorship of written materials really is not ever permissible. Sure, parents may complain about material they feel is not well suited for their child but in the end it really doesn't make a difference. Like Jeff Jacoby states in "Book Banning, Real and Imaginary," "The vast majority of these complaints deal with books assigned in school classes or found in school libraries. And as even the ALA acknowledges, the complaints usually go nowhere and the books stay where they are." I agree with this because it takes a lot more than a few people complaining to ban a book for a whole school or library. I think that if enough people had the same complaint about the material in a book in which they found was unacceptable then it would be a lot more likely that it would be banned. I don't think censorship is ever allowable because not everyone has the same opinions. For one person, a certain book may be terrible but to another it may be the best piece of work they have ever read. Not everyone agrees on everything and this is why I believe censorship is not ever permissible.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are certain situations in which censorship of written material should be allowed. I think a good situation is the censorship of inappropriate material that pertains to children. As children grow up, they take in a lot of information. What they learn provides a basis of their values and morals for later in life. I think that if a child was to read something inappropriate (sex, drugs, killing), it would affect them negatively for the rest of their lives. I also agree with Jeff Jacoby in thinking that it is wrong for a librarian (not a school librarian) to decide what to sell and what not to sell. There will always be interest groups who lobby for the banning of certain books because it goes against what they believe in. It is okay to argue for something but like ALA said, it is wrong for an interest group to take the issue into their own hands. They have to understand that there are other groups too and it's not fair to always get what you want. I think that for the most part, anything should be allowed for adults to read. It is children books that should be closely monitored.
ReplyDeleteCensorship of material should not be permissable. In "Freedom to Read" they say that freedom has allowed the United States to go through strain and have creative solutions to situations. If you try to suppress people from reading something you are trying to get them to conform and enforcing an orthodoxy. Accoring to "Freedom to Read" the Constitution even guarantees us the freedom to read. The United States was built with democracy not a totalitarian system. The beauty of democracy is that you have freedoms so you can pick what you want to do or read. "Freedom to Read" makes a good point that publishers, booksellers, and librarians should not pick what you get to read. You should be able to choose yourself. Censorship is wrong because it takes away from your freedom.
ReplyDeleteI believe that censorship of written material should only be censored if they can be easily reached by younger readers. It is the same situation with television viewing. Usually, people can watch anything they want on television. With this in mind, it is necessary to censor if this can be accessed by younger viewers. In a library, anyone can access any source. Therefore, it is important to keep certain sources away from younger readers in a library. I think that censorship should only be applied in places such as school libraries. I do believe that censorship elsewhere should not be permitted because this disables the purpose of the first amendment of our Constitution. New beliefs and ideas should not be censored because there is no point to it. It does not solve any problems. If people want to take offense to a certain piece of material, then they should not be reading that certain piece. I think it is important for librarians to realize their duty as a librarian. They are not to censor material; they are to provide a variety of material in their library. Freedom to read and of speech is not limited, and censorship simply constricts the purpose of this freedom.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is extremely wrong for people in book stores and librarians that are in charge of buying books and magazines to decline people from selling their merchandise to them. I also agree with Nick when he talked about how some children's books should be censored because of how different books would affect children negatively. It's wrong for many books to be censored because of the what parents do or don't want kids to read, especially in high school. I believe the best way to work with it is to have them read it for experience and talk about the situations so people are more aware.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what is being said about censoring literature for kids, but I don't think censoring is the right word. I think the word 'rating' fits my viewpoint better. Like Tom said, television is similar in the sense that just about any type of entertainment can be found on TV, but many shows, especially on channels that are intended for children (Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC Family, etc.) have ratings placed on them. This alerts the parents if the show is age-appropriate or not. The same goes for video games; each game has a rating whether it be E for everyone or A for adult. Why should books be any different if they are also a source of entertainment and knowledge? Rather than parents fighting to ban a book from school, which is understandable, I feel the book should be rated by the author and/or publisher to notify the reader what language, violence, etc. to expect. The school/teachers could then assign the books according to the rating. I really like the line from "The Freedom to Read" by the ALA that says, "What is needed is not only absence of restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity for the people to read the best that has been thought and said" (449). I find this important because some books are classics for reasons, regardless of a few curse words or sexual slurs and they should continue to be read by generations to come because they are timeless, just like music can be.
ReplyDeleteI agree that censoring is necessary for young children. Whether it be from books, television shows, video games, etc. because research shows that young children are heavily influenced from what they see and hear on television. Yes, its the parents responsibility to put restrictions on what their children watch, read, or listen too, but when is it ok to put the blame on the industry. I agree with what Mel said. The people like librarians should realize what is appropriate and not for young children.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these two essays, I think that censorship of written materials is permissible. I agree with Tom when he said that written materials should only be censored when they can be easily reached by younger children. If it is in a library, everything is accessible by anybody, even young kids who shouldn't be able to attain certain books because of the way they will react or be influenced by it. In my opinion, librarians should be reliable and responsible for keeping the more innapropriate and mature books out of reach of the younger crowd.
ReplyDeleteCensorship, like many things, is not an easy decision because there are so many components to it. Like many people have already stated, I feel censorship should be permissible in the case of younger children. From having a younger brother myself, I have seen the sometimes briefly traumatizing affects of both literature and visual media. While I do think a lot of responsibility lies with the parents, I agree with Sacha when she brought up when the industries should be blamed-for, somehow, they seem to always escape blame despite their shared responsibility in such matters. For the most part I'd like to have things less censored, however, there are instances (i.e. with the children) that require such measures.
ReplyDeleteI think that censorship has already done a good job at cersoring adult material from young children. I feel that way because it is harder for young children to get a hold to this material unless it is laying around. Also a lot of good parents put blocks on things to keep them out of trouble into the think there old enough to think for themselves. I do agree with everybody that they need to censore alot more stuff mostly on the internet. Everything else has really done a good job. I also think written can't be as cersored because there not real a way to relate it unless you see it.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is becoming more and more stricter than before--some adults take it too far while some media outlets put too much out there. There is no set guideline because people all have different viewpoints on this subject and there never will be a set guideline. However, there should be a notice of some sort of censorship on all games, movies, and books.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan that using the word 'rating' instead of censorship is better suited. Rating all sources of information for society gives parents and teachers the best guideline. If the particular parent does not want his/her son/daughter to see nudity or violence, or hear foul language, then that is the parent's decision. Having a 'rating' on all the media content will help that parent set their guideline.
However, either way, that child will eventually see and hear all the nudity, violence and language at some point--sheltering a child too long, in my opinion, is hard and unnecessary . But when the child is 3 years old and sees a horror film such as Saw, then that is a little too much for him/her to handle.
I don't agree with the censorship of books. When I was growing up my teachers and parents, more my mom, censored what I was able to read and watch. To be honest I think it's more of the parents who are censoring what the kids today read. I was a bit sheltered by my mother when I was growing up, but I broke out of it when i got older.
ReplyDeleteA rating system might be a little much. I mean people my age already have a tough time reading as it is. If the books get ratings then it''ll be tougher to read, or get the kids my age to read. I mean the libraries already rate the books from Child-Adult so I think that's good enough for the time being.
After reading the essays I don't think censorship is permissible. It should be up to parents and family members to watch what their kids see. But I also don't think parents should shelter their kids either. There are some things that kids are going to see and experience that their parents can't stop. If they shelter them too much, when they get older the kids will rebel. When I was younger I was able to watch what I wanted. If there was something bad in what I saw my parents would just sit me down and explain what that was and how it was bad. I agree with how my parents handled things and I also plan to do that with my kids.
ReplyDeleteI don't beleive that most reasons for book banning are reasonable. I think that if Huck Finn was banned that would make this world even worse. This is wantedbanned because it's offensive, however it is really pointing out how bad life was back then. As for kids and bad info, i don't think that i ever had an interest in a book bout Nazism, nor sex, which pours out the t.v. anyway. I like some of the other opinions that note that many of us wouldn't have read if not given somewhat adult like things. I perslonnally do not find myself more violent prone after a violent book. One of the first i'd read was Andersonville, about a civil war prison camp, and like Huck Finn it was rough but realistic, something that shouldn't be forgotten. I also think that as kids or anyone else might be t risk to questionble material, they have even more access to the other side. If you start limiting, anything could be called questionable and would be at the whim of the new politics of book banning between the different opinioned groups. By the way, i didn't notice anything in the book mentioning it but it was cool that this book banning topic was on page number 451.
ReplyDelete