Against Banning Books

By Neha K., Memphis, TN

More by this author
Email me when Neha K. contributes work

The irony of banning books: are you really "protecting" your children from the evils of
the world?

The Catcher in the Rye. The Scarlet Letter. Huckleberry Finn. Harry Potter. The Diary of Anne
Frank. Animal Farm. To Kill a Mockingbird. The Da Vinci Code. The Grapes of Wrath. These
literary classics have been vital to the education of many, especially children and adolescents.
These great novels both teach important values and educate children about world affairs and
classic themes. Unfortunately, each of these novels has been banned at one point in time. Many
of these classic stories have been banned because of sexual references, racial slurs, religious
intolerance, or supposed witchcraft promotion. Although some may consider these books
controversial or inappropriate, many English classes have required us to read these books. Like
the teachers that assigned us these books, I believe that even controversial books can ultimately
boost, not deter, our educational wealth.
I oppose book banning for three main reasons. First, I believe that education should be open to
everyone. Everyone should have an opportunity to read any literature of their choosing and form
his or her own opinions based on the reading. Micah Issitt lists "three basic rights covered under
the freedom of the press: the right to publish, the right to confidentiality of sources, and the right
of citizens to access the products of the press." My second reason specifically addresses the last
right stating that citizens should have access to the press. The government should not restrict
books from being published or interfere into personal affairs as this is an infringement of the
First Amendment. Finally, I believe that parents should monitor what their own children read, but
not have the authority to ban other children from reading these novels. For these reasons, I
conclude that the government should play no role in the issue what citizens do and do not read,
and that book restriction should remain a solely private matter.

In Defense of Censorship
By MICAH MATTIX October 16, 2013, 1:53 PM

From The American Conservative

But censorship can be a good thing, too. Originally to censor meant to assess, to value. Its
a form of the much touted but rarely practiced critical thinking, which used to be called
judgment before that term was sullied with a purely negative connotation. It protects the
innocence of the young and, in moderation, is one of the oils of a civilized and pluralistic
society. Where to apply that oil, of course, is difficult to determine in a society of widely
divergent morals, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be applied at all.
Nick Gillespie argues that while society is getting coarser, youth violence, sex and drug use
are all trending down, which would seem to suggest that exposure to inappropriate
material has had little affect on morals. The statistics are interesting but cover only the past
twenty-five years. Is this long enough to measure the effects of an increasingly cruder
culture on morals? What other constraints were put in place over this same period? Are the
effects of pornography or violent images always measurable in terms of crime and
promiscuity?