Each Friday a question will be posted on the classroom blog. You will have until Tuesday, at the end of school, to post your thoughtful response and a reflection to a classmate's response to this question. Keep in mind that some weeks you will have your X-period to work on your blog responses, while other weeks you will be in class. The blog is timestamped and your complete response is worth a total of 20 points; 2 points will be deducted for each day blog responses are late and are considered a zero on the Friday of the following week when a new blog question is posted. Don't forget to post to the blog before this time, even if you are late it is much better to receive some points rather than no points at all. This is an easy way to earn points, but can be detrimental to your grade as the zeros add up. If you are FIRST to respond to the Question of the Week, you will not be required to respond to a classmate's response. Keep in mind that the blog is timestamped, so every minute counts. Click refresh on your browser to ensure that you are indeed first. Each complete blog response is worth 20 points unless otherwise stated.
The question of the week for this week 1/28/11 is as follows:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read about First Principles of the First Amendment at:
After you have read about the First Principles and understand the rights guaranteed citizens of the U.S., define the word censorship and post your answer to this question on our classroom blog.
What effect does book censorship have on an individual's ability to recognize the benefits of the First Amendment?
Censoring books will deny someones ability to choose for themselves. It is almost as if the book is telling people that THIS BOOK IS TO MATURE FOR YOU. READ A DIFFERENT BOOK or something like that. It is also blocking the writer's right to free speech by not letting him/her express his ideas via his/her book. Another thing is that, as the link said,"The government, for example, may regulate the time, place and manner, but not regulate solely on the basis of the content of our beliefs, ideas, and expressions." This puts the censoring of books in an awkward position. So Blocking a book disagree's with the first amendment right? Well not reeeaaaallllyyy. I mean if you read further on in the link you should have seen, "...has determined that school officials may restrict students’ rights if the administrators determine that exercising those rights would interfere with the school’s mission of educating its students." And "Catcher and the Rye" could have the ability to disrupt teachers from teaching and/or students from learning. So back on subject, would book censorship have an effect on an individual's ability to recognize the benefits of the First Amendment? My answer is... somewhat. It has the ability to do so if used incorrectly, but when used correctly, it does its job of making sure that it doesn't disrupt the teaching/learning relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe word "censorship" refers to the concept of the removal of images or text from media that have been deemed inappropriate by observers.
ReplyDeleteBook censorship significantly impacts an individual's ability to recognize the benefits of the First Amendment, and also contradicts a persons First Amendment rights. Book censorship goes against the Constitution's rationale of restricting Congress from abridging freedom of speech. In actuality, American authors possess the irrefutable right to write down anything they want. Although the content of a specific book may offend certain people, the same book may appeal to others. Additionally, that same book may be using "disturbing" or "obscene" content in order to enhance the reality of the situation (this is a prominent practice in fictional literature). Such books may also be beneficial in provoking thoughts from the reader, or be symbolically representative of a philosophical view. In some cases, the material may even be educational, and education should not be deemed "unacceptable". Essentially, book censorship is disrespectful to the author of the censored book. An author doesn't write the book so others are able to distort and/or dismiss their ideas; an author writes a book so others are able to consider the author's point of view.
Henry,
I disagree with your opinion that by limiting the areas of where the book may be distributed, a person's First Amendment rights are not violated. I disagree with that due to the fact that even though a person does not necessarily have any knowledge of the regionally inaccessible book's existence in the first place, it still restricts the person from being able to ever read the book. A person should have the right to read whatever they want. Whether or not a book influences one's ideas (positively or negatively) is entirely dependent on the reader's view.
Thank you,
Des Martin
censorship |ˈsensərˌ sh ip|
ReplyDeletenoun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts : details of the visit were subject to military censorship.
Censoring books, in my opinion is wrong. I dont think it is that big of a deal because people seem to be reading less and less, but I think anyone should be allowed to read any book that they would like. If a book is offensive to you DONT READ IT! Don't restrict other readers from reading that book. Just because its offensive or simply disturbing... some people may like to read books like that...
For example "The Anarchists Cookbook" by William Powell, is a book that covers all aspects of anarchy. It tells how to make drugs in the home, fix silencers on your guns, and make huge explosives. Now, obviously this book can be undesirable to some people. It was actually banned in many places for a while. Although now it is allowed. It was decided that it was a violation of freedom of speech. For some people this is not the book for them. It may disturb, disgust, and shock those who are not "hardened" to this material. But I find it very interesting (not that i would ever do any of it). It is just very cool to know this information. This is a large scale version of what censorship really is.
I think that there should be censorship within the class curriculum. BUT this is only if it is a required class. I think there should be classes that study some of the other "bad books". Now, im not saying the anarchists cookbook, but other "tamer" books.
I agree with Des when he says, "A person should have the right to read whatever they want. Whether or not a book influences one's ideas (positively or negatively) is entirely dependent on the reader's view."
~AUSTIN TATE
The word censorship literally means removing material from media that is deemed inappropriate in a certain setting. This setting may be a school, or workplace, or any number of public institutions. The most common form of censorship happens to books within schools. I believe that it is wrong to censor a book from a school setting. Books are a great way for people to learn life lessons, especially teenagers. Taking away a book because it is deemed "to foul" or "to violent" is like taking away a teenagers right to learn something about the world and about themselves. Catcher in the Rye is a great example of this. Some people may find the books language too vulgar, and they may think that Holden sets a bad example for teenagers. I think that it is great to read and to teach this book, because it will teach teenagers so many great life lessons. Also, most people are aware by the time they reach high school what they find appropriate for themselves, so taking away a book that some might really enjoy, but others might find offensive, just doesn't seem right to me. Like everyone has said before me, if you know that a book is going to upset and offend you, DON'T PICK IT UP! Another thing is that the authors of young adult books are mainly writing them with some sort of lesson for teenagers in mind. Like Des said, saying that they aren't allowed to write down anything they want and to voice there opinion isn't just limiting them from recognizing the benefits, its also denying them the right itself.
ReplyDeleteOf course these sorts of books should be taught. Even if they are a little to violent and mature, they still teach readers important life lessons. So, does book censorship limit an individuals ability to recognize the first amendments benefits? Certainly.
Des,
I agree with you completely when you say that the book may be using mature content to enhance the situations reality. This is very true for lots of young adult books, and its part of what makes them so fun and so interesting.
Censorship is to oficially examine certain parts of media, books or movies and suppress profain and unnacceptable parts of them. Censorship is important in books because SOME BOOKS AREN'T FOR TEENS. We shouldn't be roaming around with adult books, just like five year olds shouldn't be running around with teen books. Books are banned for many reasons. The Harry Potter books were band for Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Lorax was banned for it's strong views on Global Warming. I do agree that it's against the first amendment to ban books, but we were taught in Civitas that freedom of Press stopped at the school house door. It was a Supreme Court Case. Hazelwood vs. Kulmeier. You can't put anything you want into a school news paper, and you can't just put any book in a school library. Yea, we hear the same profanities every day in school, but I don't think anyone says them nearly as frequent as Holden uses it. I think that Catcher in the Rye is too strong for high schoolers. A smoking teenager with a sexually active roomate. What kind of example is this really setting for us?
ReplyDeleteAustin, I do agree that Censorship of books is wrong, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that some books don't need to be banned per se, just simply not bought for a school library. I agree that a person should be able to read whatever they want, but I don't think Catcher in the Rye is appropriate for teenagers, some who are easily ceceptable to peer preasure.
~~Alexandra
The word "censorship" means controlling what people read, see, or write. In this case it is controlling what people read because the material has been deemed inappropriate for young eyes. I entirely disagree with censorship. I understand that for the most part, censorship is done with good intentions to protect our young and innocent minds. But if one gives up the right to read certain books, what stops a person from taking away all books? On July 12, 1549, in a town called Mani in Mexico, a group of Spanish conquistadors lit fire to hundreds, possibly thousands of Maya books. Due to the fact that the native Maya people were deemed savages, their books were obviously works of the devil. The remaining two books include a book on Astronomy (The Dresden Codex) which has some pages on the cycles of Venus, as accurate as ours today. Imagine what other knowledge was lost in that fire. It was a case of total cultural genocide, defended by some Spaniards trying to protect people. I think that the first amendment exists to protect people’s opinions and to protect our culture, which includes the books that our written. Banning certain books denies that they are important aspects of life today, because when we are gone the books will be what enlightens future people as to what issues were important at our time. For example, the book Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. It involves a girl is raped and then becomes quiet and depressed. The book is about her being able to work through and talk to somebody. It’s an ugly topic for sure, but it is something that happens to teenagers. For a girl who was raped, that book could let them know that they aren’t alone and that they can talk to people who can help. Banning that book signals to the girl that it’s a subject that is so awful and disgusting that it’s inappropriate to read about, much less to talk about. All in all, I can’t stand the idea of censorship. It is giving somebody license to decide what is best for you without even knowing who you are. There are some topics I don’t want to read about, but let me decide that for myself. I understand that in a required class, having one of these questioned books could be a problem because it’s forcing a book that may be offensive onto somebody. In such a case I think that it is the teacher’s responsibility to use common sense when choosing the written material.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, I understand your points, but I totally disagree. I think that it is great that you know what you are comfortable with and what things you aren’t. I also think that many adult books hold valuable lessons and thoughts if the student chooses that they feel ready to expand to something of a higher level. In terms of Catcher in the Rye, though it does include some profanities and other iffy topics, I think that it is a totally reasonable choice as it in no way promotes the usage of drugs or the choice to become sexually active. Holden is in fact disgusted at the thought of what Stradlator and Jane may have gotten up to. A school library exists to provide students who may not have access to books elsewhere or who just want something to read to be exposed to all types of written material. Not every book in there is for everybody, but it allows each person to grow and learn at their own pace by holding all types of everything.
We live in oppressive times, we have, as a nation, become our own thought police. Censoring books is ridiculous, nobody forces you to read a book and if you dont want to you dont have to. I get why people might have thought it to be inappropriate but you have the power to choose if you want to read it or not. I also get why people would be worried with kids being exposed to this kind of material at a young age. I agree that I wouldn't want a 6 or 7 year old kid reading this kind of book but you cant just take away (or censor) the book because of that. There is a reason why they wait until high school before they introduce you to these kinds of books, its because they feel like you are mature enough to handle the content of the text. At some point people need to realize that maybe people are reading the book because it has a good message not because of how vulgar or inappropriate it is. Most banned books have a great meaning and some people will never get to experience that because of censorship or just plain banning the book. The first amendment says that you can basically change what something wrote because of "bad" context. To me I dont get why, we as a nation take pride on our rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression when the first amendment can overrule that at any time if they deem it necessary.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is the suppression of thoughts and ideas found in the media that are officially deemed inappropriate or offensive. In this case, schools schools are censoring what their students read (by banning books) because they think certain books could potentially contain inappropriate material. I think that this is greatly limiting our ability to appreciate the benefits of the First Amendment. School is our greatest resource for learning, and by banning books, the schools are decreasing the size and variety of this resource. I can understand the point of view that the subject of some books could be so offensive that it actually inhibits our learning. However, since we are often forced to take on the responsibilities of "young adults" we should also be trusted as young adults. This means that schools should respect our judgment as to which books we think are appropriate and which books we think are not suited for our own individual level of maturity.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument for banning books would be that some books (such as Catcher in the Rye) set a bad example for developing people. I would say that characters such as Holden benefit our development. Holden is an good example of what NOT to be, and his failures should further encourage people to follow a different path than him. In order for us to grow up to be good, civil people we need to have examples of what the other side of the spectrum looks like as well as what a model citizen would look like. Finally, I would also argue that simply reading and analyzing a book does not necessarily directly cause us to act like characters in the book.
Alexandra-
I disagree with your reasoning that banning books is fair because some books aren't for teenagers. I believe that that is not a generalization that anybody should make. A book that may be too mature or serious for one person, could be a perfectly suitable book for another. If you ban a book because it is inappropriate for SOME teens, it means you are denying access to learning for all the other people who could handle the content of that book. To solve this, schools must believe in the judgment of students to read only books that are right for them. Of course, there are exceptions when this doesn't work, but it is risk that should be taken in order to leave the maximum opportunity for learning available.
-Camille
Censorship is the suppression of material that is considered inappropriate or controversial. I think that censorship does inhibit a person's
ReplyDeleteability to recognize the values of the First Amendment. Sometimes, the most controversial books are the best ones. Frequently banned books like "Lord of the Flies" and "Of Mice and Men" hold valuable lessons. Both talk about morals and human nature. If a person is never exposed to books like these, they might never learn to make important distinctions between good and bad. On the website, it states that part of the First Amendment is the ability to "decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject." If a person is never able to consider other people's viewpoints because they are censored, that individual can never make an informed decision. Freedom of Press means we have access to information, and we can decide if we agree with it or not. A person who grew up with censorship all around them doesn't recognize the benefits of being able to have and consider all of the information and make a choice, because their choices were eliminated. It would be difficult to understand the benefits of the First Amendment if you never experienced them.
Censorship in schools and libraries decreases learning opportunities. Most people want ban these books to protect children, when really they could be hurting them.
Charly, I agree with your point that the First Amendment protects our culture and our opinions. If new ideas that are considered controversial are banned, how can we move forward in our thinking? Many ideas and books that were thought to be controversial before have shaped our culture today.
I believe the first amendment right does protect you in a way that people should be able to have a free choice of what they read. Censorship is taking away people's right to choose what is right and what is wrong for them, and also takes away people's free choice. In this situation the school is taking away the student's free choice of what they would like to read. These types of books can be great books to certain people and the reader may learn a lot from them. I understand the school has good intentions of trying to protect younger kids, but the first amendment rights says that this is the wrong thing to do, and can't take away the option to read this book from everybody in the school. I also don't think the writer would appreciate the act this school has done because simply, not as many people would read the book. Books are a great way for people, especially young children to learn from, and by censoring the book means it takes away children's chance to learn and see morals in the story
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erich, how At some point people need to realize that maybe people are reading the book because it has a good message, because I think this school in a way was looking at the negative side of the book, instead of seeing that it could send a good message to kids.
Very simply, censorship is the decision of an adult that children should not read certain material, and the banning of that material from libraries and schools. I do not think that an opinion should be basis for abridging the freedom of speech of an author. When you ban a book, you abuse the First Amendment rights of the author, something that no opinion about our maturity should ever be able to accomplish. A library certainly has the right to decide what to stock, but it is wrong to try to ban something from all libraries. Censorship does affect ability to recognize the First Amendment – it makes the benefits of the amendment all the clearer. The censors cannot win: censoring a book draws attention to the book and to the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra,
I would be interested to hear your definition of “unacceptable”. While I agree that the content of Catcher is mature, I am exposed to equally mature content every day. The profanities and examples you speak of are heard every day at the school, and while neither the book nor the speech are probably true, they both set the example. Banning the book is useless – the content is pervasive in the culture of our time.
-James
Censorship is the act of keeping a certain type of information, such as a book newspaper, magazine, etc. from a certain group of people. While we may not think much about censorship in our society today, it is extremely prevalent. Censorship in itself diminishes our ability to appreciate the first Amendment, to have the right to free speech. Books have always been banned because there is always some form of opposition to ideas or material. The book that we are reading right now, Catcher in the Rye, has been banned numerous times because of its references to sex, drug content and swearing. The people that censor books like these, just because of the content are doing a disservice to the area that they are in and their country. They are doing a disservice because while they might think that it is the better thing to do, by not exposing people to the wrongs in the world, they are in fact showing the people wrong. If you have not been exposed to what you can deem as wrong, you will not be able to deem things right correctly. The main character in the book is called Holden, and he is going through a lot of trouble in his life. If we can’t analyze what he is doing wrong and learn from his mistakes, then how are we supposed to further ourselves as a society? Much of this has to do with the people who censor these books wanting social conformity, or a society where everybody is the same. I can see why people might want to censor material, though. They might consider the material to be too controversial, or not appropriate content for the reader. A person has a right to choose what to read, because of the rights given to Americans in the first Amendment, so they can simply not choose to read it if they choose not to. They don’t have to have somebody control their choices for them.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra- I disagree with your statement. Why do you think that it is appropriate to censor something that we will come into contact with at some point in our lives? As teenagers, we are about to become adults and have all the choices that will present themselves later in life. If you look at what Holden talks about and struggles through, then maybe you can make better choices as your life progresses. A book like this is an educational experience that we can all benefit from.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe censoring of books takes away a readers ability to decide where their views are. They don’t have the opportunity to read others views and develop their own views on a particular topic. Censoring books makes it difficult for not only people in general but especially young people who, if they don’t read other’s points of view can only depend on the often narrow views of their family, friends, teachers and limited community members.
ReplyDeleteCensoring books is also barely missing violating the writers right to freedom of expression. They, like every other American citizen has the right to write or vocalize the views, opinions and ideas.
Alexandra, I,like Charly, understand your points, but disagree. If parents don’t want their children to read what they deam inappropriate, it should be their job to watch what their child is reading, not setting regulations for other parents and (when they’re old enough) children’s decisions as to what they read. There is a certain innocents to every child which they should be able to enjoy, but it should be the individual family/child’s decision, not a few regulating many.
The word censorship means the removal of inappropriate and unwanted images or text from the media. The problem with censorship, is what it really boils down to is opinion. Who's to say what's inappropriate? Who's to say you are required to read or view it? When you turn on a television, read a book, surf the internet, that is a choice you are making. You are risking the event in which you come across questionable behavior. Censorship completely clashes with our first amendment rights. Just because you can delete or erase certain videos or words doesn't mean it should be allowed. If someone has something to say, their first amendment rights should be respected wherever and whenever. Some people may beg to differ because once something is posted on the internet or filmed, it can travel throughout the entire world in a matter of only a few hours. Where as in an every day situation, only the people who witness the event are affected by it. In my opinion, books should never be banned. If you disagree with the author's choice in words, don't read it. I'm sure the author didn't write the book to offend anyone, but they probably also didn't write the book with everyone's opinion in mind. Someone will always disagree with your opinion, and taking that into consideration, speak your mind because you're never going to make everyone happy. It's impossible. We don't need books to be banned, that's what we have parents for. After parents, you're eighteen, an adult and you can decide for yourself what's right and wrong, but if we can't, our first amendment rights are nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteClark, you raise some very good points. As teenagers we know swears, we say swears, we read swears and yes, we still know swears are offensive. The reality of it is, the swears aren't as big of a deal as people make them out to be. By now we are so used to them that they wont take away from the important lesson of the book. Adults always try to hide younger people for the real world, but the real world contains events that may be valuable to our education. It's almost like trying to convince high school students that there really is a Santa Claus...hope everyone knew that by now..
My definition of censorship is the removal or substitution of material (words, ideas, or even complete works) found in any form of media deemed harmful or inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand the reasoning behind those who believe in censorship, I must say that I do not believe in it completely. In regards to such frequently censored literary works like CITH, I think it's a shame that people take such a true, bitingly accurate portrait of adolescence and, through the process of banning it, sully it into something dirty and immoral. I also think that censorship is counterintuitive to some degree: If you learned that a book had been removed from your library wouldn't you want to at least know why? The best way one can do this is by reading the book, therefore nullifying the initial attempt of censorship. However, I don't think all attempts at censorship should be written off as a violation of the First. There's a reason for that little black box you see on MTV so often, and that reason may not become apparent to you until you're watching an uncensored episode of Skins and your baby sister pops her head into the room, then returns with your mother five minutes later, demanding to know who and where she learned such words from. These forms of censorship, the ones seen on TV, are really to protect viewers, although one could argue that the demographic or maturity amongst such an audience is questionable, given the fact that all you have to do is turn on the TV at ten p.m to be given access to such programs. I think the right thing to do is to inform our children, curious as they are, why we would prefer them not to read that book, watch that movie, or listen to that music. Beyond that, I don't think we can or should do anything to prevent them further from pursuing such material: in the age of instant search engines, there are really no other physical barriers between the kid and the book. The only duty we have as future parents, educators, members of religious groups, or any other participant of an area of life that would influence what we deem appropriate or inappropriate, is to answer any questions kids have about such potentially explicit material, which will probably include why such material could have been banned in the first place.
In response to Austin's comment about The Anarchist Cookbook, there was a very interesting article in this month's issue of WIRED magazine entitled "Mayhem for Dummies", which is basically the story of the Cookbook's conception and evolution, and a chronology of all the damage the Cookbook has inflicted over the years, from 1976 to 2005. (I'm not sure, Austin, if you were aware of this article in the first place - perhaps it was the inspiration for your comment?) The Cookbook's knowledge has been employed by "Timothy McVeigh [responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing], Kip Kinkel [high school student who murdered his parents and engaged in a school shooting], Puerto Rican separatists, and Croatian nationalists... abortion-clinic bombers, school shooters, and small armies of would-be revolutionaries." Although the article makes the additional point that "...would-be terrorists can always Google "how to make an IED" and have a Home Depot-ready shopping list in seconds." What’s even more interesting and possibly disturbing than this is the fact that Timothy McVeigh was a well-known advocate for the second amendment, attending many pro-gun rallies before the time of his infamous massacre. In addition to this, Lyle Stuart, the man who stopped Powell in 2000, is “a provocateur and [a] first amendment activist… he remained the tome’s most ardent supporter.” He purposefully repurchased the rights to the Cookbook after selling his publishing company in 1990, just to make sure the book stayed in print. These observations raise yet another powerful question: not only is censorship wrong, but is the amendment that denounces it wrong as well?
Censorship is the removal of “inappropriate” material for the benefit of other people. Censorship in books blocks peoples’ creativity and uniqueness. Censorship is a barrier for intelligence and understanding as well. The reason that some of these books were banned was because of their obscene language. If people are not exposed to this, they will not understand the world well. This leads me to recognizing the benefits of the first amendment. People need to realize that they have the right to publish whatever they want, and the banning of books is taking that away. Also, people in schools have the right to read whatever they want. Ms. Piro made a point in class that any one of us could walk into the library and check out any book we wanted. When books are censored, it only filters out what adults think is bad stuff, and we as kids can’t check that book out of the library because of someone else’s opinion. For instance, there was a dictionary banned from a school. In my opinion, that’s a ridiculous idea. Some other group of people, though, thinks differently.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sumner about books not being banned under any circumstances. Like she said, banning books is contradicting our first amendment rights. Because some group of people thinks a book is bad or too mature for an audience, doesn’t mean they should be taken away. It it also limiting exposure to different kinds of literature in this way.
Censorship is the practice of examining books, movies, and more, and suppressing unacceptable parts. Censorship limits the First Amendment by banning some books from public places, making them harder to find. I think that there are a lot of books that could be classified as having some unacceptable content but I think books should not be banned just because they have witchcraft in them. Not everyones religion dislikes witchcraft. Censorship also suppresses the authors ideas on a certain subject. Everyone has ideas on different subjects, it should not be the case that some subjects are suppressed while other subjects are not. I think parents and teachers should be the ones to decide what the students read instead of having the government interfere with the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, I agree and disagree with you. I think that five year olds should not be reading teenage books and teenagers should not be reading adult books. But I think it should be up to the teachers and parents to decide what books kids should read according to their age. The government should not control what people read and limit authors points of views.
Censorship is the removal of books magazines and other media that are thought to be harmful or inappropriate. Censorship is used widely in our society and books are often banned because of this process. I think this interferes with the First Amendment because instead of helping guarantee the individual freedom of citizens, censorship limits it. If books are banned, people don't have access to the material in them. These books, although the content may be controversial, should be offered to everyone who wants to read it. If someone doesn't agree with what is written, they don't have to read it. Just because one group of people doesn’t agree with what is written doesn’t mean everyone does. People usually ban books to protect those who they don’t think are mature enough for it. The exposure to the books allows a person to develop their own oppinion on certain topics. If you can't read the books people might as well make up your mind for you.I think that at a certain age people can figure out whether they agree or not. When you are still young your parents can decide for you. The First Amendment guarantees many rights and freedom of expression is part of that. If books are banned I don’t see how we are being allowed to freely express ourselves and read what we want.
ReplyDeleteLena, I agree with you in that banning books in schools in useless and decreases the opportunities for learning. As students, we should also be developing our own oppinions to things we learn about. Without the availability of certain books, we are denied that opportunity.
Censorship is the act of controlling or banning information. Book censorship affects an individual’s ability to recognize the benefits of the First Amendment because books are expressions of thoughts and opinions and as individuals if we are prevented from reading books we are being denied exposure to new ideas. For authors, to have their book censored it would violate their freedom of speech and expression. The First Amendment is all about freedom and censorship denies that right and that’s why I think censorship is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra, I disagree with the fact that ninth graders are not ready to read books such as The Catcher and the Rye. I think that we are mature enough to handle the content and be able to understand its value and meaning. I agree with Erich’s thoughts on the fact that sometimes banned books have great meaning, and maybe it’s the strong ideas within them that pose a threat.
Books shouldnt be banned. Theres no point in really banning them anyway. Its just a speed bump, trying to stop you from getting it. If you really wanted to read it then you could just buy it and be like HA! take that government.But in reality, banning books do stop people from reading them even if only by a little bit. If you were an aouthor and your book got banned how would you feel? the government would be talking away your source of income and your freedom of teh press. It shouldnt be up to someone else to tell you if your allowed to write a book or not.
ReplyDelete"The First Amendment is based upon the conviction that all human beings have inalienable rights. Our commitment to rights is inseparably linked to our civic responsibility to guard those rights for all others.
When faced with unpopular views or unrefined speech, members of the public may ask, “Why doesn't the government do something about that?” The answer? Neither government nor a majority of the public has the authority to stop an unpopular idea."
These exerts from the article show that the government does not have the authority, nor do ordinary people on that matter, to infringe on others rights.
If people see a banned book they might think, wow, the government can really do that? Well they sort of can, but it makes them think that the government has control over their rights and freedom, which affects their view on teh first amendment and how they DO have freedome of the press.
I agree with Jara, and that by banning books, it supresses the authors creativity and might intimidate them from writing another really good book, maybe even a "new york times best seller"
Peace
Censorship means that anybody, while looking through a book, movie and or play, can ban a book, movie and or play from public. If they find something unacceptable for an age group or if something goes against their religion they can have the government ban it. This goes directly against some aspects of the first amendment. The First amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Say a book like Harry Potter comes around and is challenging the Christian religion. The Government, according to the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, shouldn't be able to do anything about the establishment of a Religion. Well, J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter might have intended to go against the Christian religion in order to promote another one, and the government, again according to the Establishment Clause, can't stop her. Censorship also interferes with Freedom of press. As Alexandra brought up some of our rights change when we come into school, but the school can choose whether or not if the books are appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI, Like Austin, agree with Des about the fact that we should be able to read what we want. I agree because at some point in our life we will be exposed to things like drugs, swearing and sex, so we may as well learn about them when we are younger in order so that we are more experienced when we finally do get exposed.
Censorship is an unnecessary form of restriction and limit towards the learning of children. It is a removal of content that a group finds inappropriate. Banning books completely contradicts the 1st amendment right. A group of people should not be given the right to ban a book just because they don't agree with its content or they don't like the message it is sending. Banned books leaves barriers in the way of creativity and being special. If you feel like you want the book to be banned then you must have bad feelings for it. If you feel this way then just don't read the book.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Sumner and Ethan said about how banning books contradicts the first amendment. Also how they said that just because a certain group disagrees with some of the content in a book or movie doesn't mean it has to be taken away it just doesn't need to be read if that is what you choose.
Tom
I can see why some books, if they are very inappropriate, can be banned from elementary school and to some extent middle schools, but I feel like there shouldn't be any books that should be banned from high school students and public libraries. For instance, "the Catcher in the Rye" is banned from many schools and libraries because people think Holden's behavior is inappropriate. He swears, smokes and drinks. Parents want to protect their kids from being like Holden, but I feel like most kids are very aware of drinking, swearing and smoking before they enter high school. I'm not saying they do it, I'm just trying to say that they know about it. So not letting them read this book won't change much. As with many books, "the Catcher in the Rye" has a message to the reader. Whatever the author is trying to reveal through the book, I'm sure is a very valuable lesson in life.
ReplyDeleteAs many kids said before me, banning books would go against the first amendment because it's not letting the authors share his/her view through freedom of press. If people find any books to be inappropriate then why do they read them? Everyone has the power to choose whether to read a book or not (with the exception of students in schools).
I agree with Sumner when she said that banning books contradicts our first amendment and that anyone should be able to publish whatever they wish to publish. Books shouldn't be banned just because some group of people find them inappropriate.
Censorship is the removal of things in books, movies, TV shows etc. that is influential or inappropriate for people to see or read. In my opinion censoring books is very useless because people tend to want what they cannot have. Censoring books will not stop people from getting them. Banning books contradicts the first amendment rights. The authors should be able to say what the want. Certain groups of people who don't like what the authors are saying should't be able to ban the book and block the imagination of the author. Even though you can still get uncensored books it shows mothers that the book is inappropriate and as a kid you may not be able to read it. this stops some people from reading the book and this could reduce sales and the authors income. That isn't fair for the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew that it shouldn't be up to someone else whether you say certain things in your book because the book is yours.
Censorship is the removal of certain books, speech, or other forms of media that people believe can negatively affect in most cases, a child or young adult. In other words, banning 'inappropriate' material. I don't think that anybody should have the ability to censor books. It's not like after you ban them, they won't still exist and people won't read them. Also, I think it's unreasonable and unfair that other people should get to decide what children can read and not read. Also, censoring books in a way goes against the first amendment rights. It is stated that the congress shall not, but that doesn't mean that other people won’t. So, censoring is not exactly going against the amendment. However, the idea is still the same. If the Congress cannot ban books, normal civilians shouldn't be able to either. Censoring is also restricting the freedom of speech to the authors of these banned books. That, by all means goes against the first amendment right. I know that anyone who is censoring books is doing it for a good cause, but I still don’t think that anybody should have that right. Also, I don’t think an argument could be, “They shouldn’t censor books unless the book has terrible and harming material.” If some one says that, they are just supporting the censoring of books because the people that ban them feel the same way. All in all, I think that people should have a choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sumner and her view of censorship. I think it is a great point that everything comes down to opinion. It’s incredibly correct because the people who are censoring the books are doing it because they think that the material is inappropriate. But as Sumner said, who are they to decide? People should have the right to choose what they want to view for themselves.
The word censorship means to remove material from any source of media that has been classified as mature, vulgar, or inappropriate for the viewership of certain individuals
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree with censorship. I understand that in certain circumstances, it makes a lot of sense. For example, would you really want a five-year-old watching an adult TV show? However, I believe that book censorship in particular directly violates and author's first amendment rights. If someone is saying that you're not allowed to express your thoughts through literature, than you might as well not be allowed to say anything at all. So, what does freedom of speech really mean if you can't share your true thoughts with the public? Our own definitions of what is appropriate and not inappropriate are all different. We are raised in different environments, and our unique path in life is what makes our world diverse. What is right and what is wrong? What is appropriate and what is inappropriate? What is the truth and what is not? I don't think we really know the answer to that; it's all pure opinion. Should we really have to abide by someone else's viewpoints? If we aren't allowed to read one book because one person thinks it's offensive, we might as well grow up in complete isolation from the media. I think as minorities, it's up to our parent(s)/guardian(s) to make the decision to expose us to mature content at their discretion. Yes, we are going to learn it all eventually, but it's a matter of at what time we learn it. For some people, that could be now. For others, it could be later. The bottom line is, if you find something offensive, DON'T READ IT. Other people may find it extremely beneficial, and if someone is taking away their right to learn from it, that's the exact opposite of freedom of speech. What I think is ironic, is that books like Catcher in the Rye have become even more iconic and noteworthy in today's media, because they've been banned. Just look at us now; a book that was considered vulgar and a bad example for teenagers is now being taught in schools all over the country. Why should we be protected for something that might change the way we view life for the better? I think the very people who set these rights in stone intended for it to be that way. According to the first principles, "Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy".
Des-
I completely agree with everything you said, especially the part about mature content enhancing the reality of the situation. I agree that book censorship violates and author's first amendment rights. If it offends you, don't read it. The same book could be beneficial to someone else.
When a book is censored, it is taken out of libraries or other public places because someone had found it to be inappropriate or offensive. Censorship can be a good thing at some times, although it goes against the First Amendment in many ways. Censorship can help protect younger people from hearing or being exposed to things that others don’t think they should know about. This may be a good thing sometimes because it may make them less likely to engage in things that they read about in the books. Reading these books may make these children feel like that is the way they should be behaving, when it may not be. The books are also still able to be bought or read so if you really want to read the book, you can. If somebody finds a book offensive and is going against their religious or other beliefs, they shouldn’t have to be exposed to it. Books being censored can also go against the First Amendment, because the author should have freedom of press and be able to write whatever they chose. But if what they write could hurt someone in some way, I believe that it is fair for the book to be censored. Even if the book is censored people can still get it to read if they want, they just can’t get it in a public place because it may be offensive to someone.
ReplyDeleteLena, I like how you pointed out that some of the censored books may have valuable lessons that people may need to learn. But people are still able to get the books even if they are banned, you can still read them, they just aren’t in public places so they aren’t as hurtful to certain people. If you can still read the book, you can still learn these lessons, so it really shouldn’t matter whether or not the book is censored. The amendment just tries to protect people from offense.
Censorship, has two faces. One definition of it is the suppression of books, tv shows, articles, and other types of media because of inappropriate, offensive or mature content which could lead the readers to harm. A second definition is that censorship is the removal of the work or expression of someone from the public or a certain group of people because it contains ideas or words considered to be offensive, inappropriate or hurtful.
ReplyDeleteCensorship of books rouses a big controversial amongst a population because of the first Amendment which states that each citizen has the right to things such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech. With each of the definitions above there is a side that goes along with it of how the First Amendment is violated.
Side 1- violates 1st amendment because who is there to say that you cannot read something? the authors have the right to freedom of expression and the readers the right to reading it all.
It also violates the 1st amendment because who is there to say that one cannot decide what they want their community (or whoever concerned) to read and who can take away their right of expressing what they think is right or harmful. In this case, the 1st Amendment of the author, censors and readers are violated.
Side 2- media is censored for the protection of those who it could harm. As Catherine states with her example of the Skins television show and a little sibling, some information is inappropriate and harmful for those too young to know about. It is then not a violation of the First Amendment as it is done to protect others.
That 2nd side then brings up the question about who is too young for certain things, and who has the right to determine that. I think that in both cases, there are valid points and I think it is a tricky situation the balance is still to be found. Just like artists create something as a form of expression, media such as books is the same thing and so why should theirs run the possibility of being banned if it is an expression of speech or an idea? If the Government isn't allowed to turn down an unpopular view- then who gives people the right to censor something and turn it down just because they don't like it? I think that in this tricky situation it becomes even messier when the censor affects more than a few people making the decision as the First Amendment gives all citizens the right to have their own ideas.
On the other hand, if a book is censored, it is just removed publicly and people can still get it so is it worth then rising such a controversy about how the First Amendment applies?
Catherine and Annalee- I completely agree with both of your points. When books are censored and removed, sometimes that sparks a bigger longing or a new longing to read that book having the opposite effect. However, that only effects some as not everyone will know about the banning of the book and so for those people, they would never be exposed to it. And, this is sometimes for better as some things really can be harmful for younger kids especially. I remember when I was little and I came downstairs to say goodnight to my parents who were watching an R-rated movie. I had to close my eyes because they didn't want me to see it, but just the sounds scared me already.
Our society and the life we live on has evolved greatly, some of the things censored several years ago today aren't viewed the same way. In a hundred years or so, what we think unacceptable might be very common. We never know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, etc. Censorship is a somewhat of a contraction from the first Amendment. By the government banning books, they are taking our right. Schools should not ban books because the whole point of school is that we learn, develop and grow. In part of that we have to learn what is right and what is wrong. Banning books would stop us from learning what is wrong. I understand the reasons why people censor books; they think that we can’t handle adult books. I think we can, for example around six or seventh grade, my class had been asked to read Chandra’s Secrets over the summer. My friend (that recently moved away)’s mother took away the swears and when there was a bad scene she would only give her the idea of what happened. It had some tough chapters but reading it without the censors made it more powerful and more real. Some people can’t understand that we need it even though it’s tough, also I think that perhaps some parents can’t see that we are grown up enough to handle it. My point is in Cather and the rye, is that sure there can be some uncomfortable sections and a lot of unnecessary cursing, but overall it’s more important to read it. Also it is not fair to the author because the government is also taking away the freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eleanor, don’t read it if it’s offensive to you. I believe reading these books are important and shouldn’t be banned. We can handle the material.
The word "censorship" refers to the concept of the removal of images or text from media. In my opinion I think we should not have censorship, because it limits our learning. I think that people should not have to rights to banning books because of content of information the book has or even what writer's message to the reader. Books shouldn't be banned because it teaches us about life learning information that could help us later on in the future. So if we banned books it would limit or knowledge and not allow us to have an better understanding of things. Also if you don't like a book no one is forcing you to read it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tom because books are what teaches us about things from right and wrong and if we cant read books that teach us these things we lose knowledge and understanding of things. He is also right about how banning books contradict the 1st admenent.
"Censorship" is the idea that has developed as the 21st centuries technology has. As more and more advanced technologies reveal themselves, more levels of censorship are developed. My opinion on censorship is neutral, that is I believe that in some concepts it is needed and others it is not. Books are an unnecessary level of censorship, if a young adult or child is not able to decide if their ready for a book or not, than what kind of world has modern America become? A media cover up? Adults deciding for just as thoughtful people? But when it comes to children and visual media such as violent and graphic material than a certain level of censorship comes into play.
ReplyDeleteI agree with michael, banning books prohibits healthily earned knowledge. Books are not ideal for everyone because some people learn better visually or audibly. Good work Michael