Censorship
You can respond to all or pick just one...
1. Is it okay to have books on making bombs in the school library?
2. Will banning books keep people from reading them?
3. Television shows are censored, so are song lyrics—what makes books different?
posted by annes @ 9:34 AM
37 Comments:
Just to throw this out there:
"Censorship is like telling a man he can't eat steak because a baby can't chew it"
--Mark Twain
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NO WAY that banning books would stop people from reading them. It actually makes people WANT to read them. At the library the other day when I was checking out my banned book, the librarian said that as soon as the school district bans a book, everybody wants to read it. I think that the more you tell someone "no," the more they try to do what you said no to.
I personally am against having books on bombs in the school library. There is too great of a chance, that someone will read it and make a bomb.
That being said, that doesn't mean that we need to have huge controversy to remove such books, just don't order them in the first place.
I'll do questions 2 and 3. So number 2... No, it will not. Think about our class. We're reading Fahrenheit 451 aren't we? Banning things just makes people want to do them. It has to do with challenging the system. When rules are set on people, they just want to break them to challenge the system. Now number 3... I think that if you changed certain words in books, it could possibly change the message of the book. In movies and songs, you can actually hear the words and so producers block them out. In songs, you can hear the tone of voice of the speaker or the singer, and so you can tell their message, no matter if it in censored or not. In books, it is written so you can't really tell the tone. If the government censored books, the writers would probably sue and the government doesn't want to take that chance.
When it comes to the idea of censorship, I believe that censorship is good to a degree. "The Pedestrian" and "Harrison Bergeron" are examples of times when censorship has gone too far, though I believe that these cases could never actually happen (People are not so simple-minded that they would put up with such loss of freedom!) In some cases, though, as with the banning of the bomb-making book, censorship is objective. Since the school has the right to choose which books are in its library and which are not, there is no possiblity for an argument. It is simply the school's decision.
1. It all depends really, for research purposes yes, they are important, especially for classes having to do with war. Though, the downfall of that is the Columbine incident, it makes you wonder ALL of the places they recieved informaion from.
2. Of course not, look at what we are doing in Smith's class right now!! Harry Potter books are some of my favorite, I am certainly not going to stop reading them because someone does not agree with the content.
3. Books are a choice. Sometimes, you will be sitting and watching TV, and you will be flipping throught the channels, and something inapropriate will come on, the only power you would have at that moment would be to quickly change the channel. Books are a choice because you choose what you read and what you don't. The radio is different in that instance, because the station is choosing for you. You have more power when it comes to choice on books.
I am a little divided on having bomb books in school libraries.I agree with what paigen said that maybe some kids are doing research on bombs and need to know how they are made, but to some extent, I don't think it would be the smartest thing to have bomb books in school libraries. Like other people said, someone could be tempted to do something stupid like trying to blow up the school or something. I also agree with what everyone else has said that the more books are banned, the more people read them. They wonder what made the books so appalling that people wanted them banned, and I think it is just human nature to question what we are told is bad. We want to discover if things really are as bad as everyone says.
I actually am not really sure why censoring books is a bigger deal than censoring TV shows and song lyrics...it's kind of interesting to think about.
I agree with Alee on the topic of bombs. Bombs are a part of our history and if someone needs to learn about that, go right ahead! I just personally wouldn't feel safe if books on what it takes to make bombs should be in libraries, because who knows what somebody could think up?
Banning books obviously will not keep people from reading them. Fahrenheit 451 is now the 5th baneed book that I have read in school in the past 5 years, so teachers are definetely not listening to when books are banned. I don't think that that's a bad thing either because most of the books have actually been really interesting and I enjoyed them.
Books definitely should not be censored. With TV and songs, they tend to use them to make themselves "cooler" in some sense. But that's just me. Especially in songs. I agree with paigen in saying that people can choose whether or not they want to read a book. Plus, it just adds the reality to the book. It's a fact of life, and people just have to get used to it when reading it. That's what I had to do when reading "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn".
I think censorship is wrong in its entirety. If someone feels something should be censored, they are insulting what the author intended. Unless the writer is a pervert, I'm pretty sure that they didn't put a swear word or suggestive material in there just to make themselves feel good. Music artists have the right to say if they want a censored version of their albums, and I don;t understand it. If they want younger audiences, they shouldn't have any reason to have to put an EXPLICIT CONTENT PARENTAL ADVISORY stick on there. Its all about money. I think that swearing also might help lower violence rates. If a person stubs their toe on anothers desk, instead of punching the person who was in the desk, they can just yell the F word (I'm censoring myself), and it doesn't hurt anyone who actualy knows what that means. Its like yelling the word pencil: it doesn't (or shouldn't) offend anyone. Books on bombs are peoples own problem. If you come into a school library looking to find how to make yourself an explosive device, you may have issues. Also: banning books will not make people stay away from them, rather, it will draw them to it. It may keep away certain ignorant religions (all of them are ingorant in their own way, as they belive in something that they have no legitimate proof of, after all), but not the general public, especially in America.
If you want to yell at me for any of the things I have just said, feel free, but I won't be listening.
On number one, I personally think that it is not ok to have books on making bombs in school libraries. I think this because school age kids are the ones who have thought about making bombs, and it has happened before as well. I do though; agree with paigen when she said that not everyone has the power to get a hold of the materials used. It is possible, though. I still don’t think that they should have access to the process and materials used in making a bomb.
On question two, I think that banning books will not keep people from reading them. For example, our nest reading assignment is to read a banned or challenged book. Also, I think that people like to do things that are against the rules, just so they can say they did. I know that at Powell, we weren’t allowed to chew gum, and that made people want to even more. Banning books will probably motivate people to read them even more.
On number three, I agree with paigen again, when she said that censoring books would take it a little too far, and that it is over doing it. I do think that some of the material in the books is questionable, but people should be able to make their own decisions on whether or not they should read certain books based on what is in them. People should be able to make their own decisions on those things, and everything.
In response to question 1, I think that books that tell you how to make bombs should be censored in schools. High school or middle school aged kids don't need to be learning and reading about that kind of stuff. And yes, it was the author's choice to write about that certain topic but it doesn't need to be in schools or libraries for that matter. We already have enough problems in the present day with tragic school incedents and we don't need books that teach you how to make bombs to make that problem worse.
In response to question 2, banning books will not keep people from reading them. People are too curious about why the certain book was banned and would then want to get a hold of them and read them. I have already read Fahrenheit 451 and that kind of thing happens in the story...but i won't spoil it for anyone. :)
In response to question 3, television and song lyrics might be censored more because they're played everywhere. Like you can go anywhere and hear music playing in the grocery store, in the mall..whatever. So, people feel the need to censor it because you might not necessarily have the choice to hear it or not. With books, you have th choice to read it or not. No one is forcing you. So i don't understand why books are banned so much. If someone decides to read the book, thats their decision, and they have to be aware of what they might be reading.
Is it okay to have books on making bombs in the school library?
This is a hard one. I think that you should be able to read whatever you want even if it is something really disturbing and the view of others. However, having books that could indanger the safety of others lives shouldn't be put on the shelves for all to read. I think that there should be books in the library that show the history of bombs and the terror that they cause but I don't think that they should be all out there for some student to pick up and learn how to make a bomb. The though of someome wanting to even write a book on how to make bombs scares me.
Will banning books keep people from reading them?
Banning books aren't going to stop people from reading them. If people really want to read a certain book then they are going to find a way to read it. They will challenge the system if they really have the guts to do it.
I really like the quote about Mark Twain that mphair put out there! I think that some books are banned for ridiculous reasons. Harry Potter is banned for witchcraft. That said, why isn't Macbeth banned as well? Macbeth also includes "witchcraft." It just doesn't make sense. Also, it is understandable that some people do not celebrate Halloween, but that shouldn't make all books banned that include witchcraft. If they do not believe in it/it offends them, just don't read it.
Library's shouldn't have books on making bombs on account of all the school shootings that have been happening. This is also basic public security an so on.
Just because a book is banned does not mean that people will not read it. If somthing is taken away, it just makes people more curious to see why.
Books are different because people have the CHOICE to read them or not. Like hannahj said, grocery stores and stores in the mall play music and you can't change that, yes it is true, you can walk out. But still you have a choice, no one is forcing you to do anything.
another banned book quote:
“[I]t's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers.” — Judy Blume
I don't think that banning a book will stop people from reading them. I agree with Ayla that banning a book makes people want to read them. If a book is banned, I might want to read it just to find out why it is banned. Actually, the last three books that I have read for school have been on the banned list(The Outsiders, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Lord of the Flies.)
In my opinion, I don't think it is appropriate to have books on making bombs in the school library. Although I think it can be dangerous, I also think that a school library should be used as a resource for learning related to school.
Banning books will not keep people from reading them. Usually, when people are told not to do something, it encourages them more. This could be because they want to see how far they can cross a line, "stick it to the man", or just plain curriosity.
1.It's not ok to have books on bomb making in the library because the school does not support making bombs or believes kids or for that fact anyone should have the ability and information needed to cause destruction in society.
2.Banning books does not necessarily prevent people from reading them, it just shows that the place that bans them considers the book either inappropriate or does not want to support the content in the book.
For number one I pesonaly do not think it is okay for school librarys to have books on making bombs.I do think anyone and everyone should be allowed to read whatever they want to, but not in schools. We are all trying to make the world a safer place and we want to insure the safety of others, but we can't do so if people are checking out books on how to make bombs. Even if they don't do anything with it or seem suspicious, it still isn't safe. Books should be allowed to be checked out from the library on bombs and the dangers, backround, history etc. but not on how to make them. Even though like paige said you probably wouldn't follow through with it, it is possible so we better not risk it. Also with everything going on in the schools and around the world lately with shootings, bombings, and the students it would be even more unsafe.
I agree with Hannah J on her ideas on having bomb building books in schools. I don't think they should be there just because it makes the information more readily accessable to those who actually intend to use it. I know this information is available on the internet, but atleast someone with the potential for violence has to work harder to find it. It also keeps the information away from the general student body, and therefore I think it's less likely to be used. I'm not really sure what to think on the idea of censorship. I don't like the idea in general, but there are a lot of crazy people in this world that make it necessary. I also think the extent of the censorship should depend on the times and the severity of the material being censored. The problem with this theory is that this will differ from person to person, and whose decision is it to make? Is it the governments or is it the parents? Although I'd like to think that books are the same as TV shows and song lyrics, but I don't think they are. I think teens are more likely to listen to what is said on tv and in lyrics because they are "cooler".
[I HAVE DECIDED TO BOLD NAMES OF PEOPLE I AM ADDRESSING]
First of all, alexm's comments were basically genius, not to mention entertaining. The only thing I want to yell at him though, is "PENCIL!"
Also, erinl, I am glad to see that someone is using italics and stuff like that. Way to go. And it makes things easier to understand.
Now, to the questions.
1: Is it ok for schools to have books on making bombs in the school library?
No, in my opinion, it is not. Detonation of certain sizes of explosive devices (at least anything that could be called a bom) is illegal everywhere, I think, but definitely in city limits. Therefore, information on how to preform illegal activities is not something that should be distributed in a government institution. Also, it would be stupid of the school to pay for the books (assuming they were not "donations") because they have no real educational value. They are educational, I guess, but not real valuable.
2: Will banning books keep people from reading them?
Yes and no. People will have their curiosity piqued by the ban and want to read them, but it they are actually banned and not there, then most people will probably go "Oh well, might as well go back to TV." If the book is not actually removed, more people will read it though. After all, the more controversial the ban, the more free publicity.
For example, take Hugo Chavez's endorsement of a Noam Chomsky book. "OK, this guy called our president the devil. I don't like that. But he said read this book! I bet it is a bad book. But I want to read it anyway!" It instantly shot to the top Amazon.com's best seller list.
3: Television shows are censored, so are song lyrics—what makes books different?
Here is my opinion. None of them should be censored. I like how they do it with R-Movies. You must have parental consent. I think it is a personal, family decision, not a government decision. Or at least it should be. Books, movies, songs, video games, and anything I left out should all be rated. And it should be up to parents, not the government, to control what their children are exposed to. Books should not be different, and none of them should be censored.
Now I will add my own quote to the mix:
"Fear of corrupting the mind of the younger generation is the loftiest form of cowardice."
-- Holbrook Jackson
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ok, blogger was being mean and not letting me use HTML to create a hyperlink. So just copy (ctrl+c) and paste (ctrl+v) this into your address bar. It is a website with a huge selection of quotes about censorship. The rest of the website is about banned books.
http://quotes.forbiddenlibrary.com/
Ok, sorry for all the posts, but there is something else that I just thought of, and that is this.
Censorship is saying "You cant display this." It is a ban. But I think it is also the choice of the establishment on whether they want to censor themselves. For example, if someone said "I don't want to sell this book in my bookstore. It is offensive." I think it is their right to not sell it. They choose their own products.
And in response to adrianag, I don't think that if the school library decided not to have a book about bomb-making, then that would not be censorship. It is up to them what they have. But if something like a library or a bookstore does not carry something for a bad reason, such as not having To Kill a Mocking Bird because it is a "dirty sex novel," then it is the obligation of the citizenry to exercise their freedom to assemble and try to get the book on shelves. Public dialogue is the best way to decide what a "bad reason" really is, and whether or not the book should be re-instated.
I will respond to the 3rd question. (Television shows are censored, so are song lyrics- what makes books different?)
Television shows are censored, but not very well. there is hardly a non-children show on the air that doesn't deal with controversial issues like sex, and they don't deal with it in a good way. In some shows a whole episode will be focused solely on that one subject, that is hardly appropriate for anyone who could happen upon that channel. TV shows also swear a ton, yet no one makes a move to stop it while a book will have one swear word in it and it banned. (i might be exaggerating a little bit...) Song lyrics are are censored as far as profainity but not as far as their subject matter, and again, anyone could happen upon that station.
Books are censored way more than either music or telivision, and i dont really know why, but as far as the books i have looked at it seems to be parents trying to protect their children from the subject matter. where are the parents when it comes to TV, or radio, which are far more widely available for their 'innocent children' to be tainted with?
Books are under attack maybe because when the word(s) are written, you can stop and be amazed by them, yet on TV or the Radio, the words pass by where you cannot go back to them, so your mind just glazes over these parts in the show or radio station.
I think it is ok to have books on bombs in the library because we have a right to now even though we might not want to. It may be suspicious to check out a book about bombs, but if we want to know we should be able to. I don't think banning books will make people not read them at all. If anything people will want to read them more to see why it was banned. People always want to be rebels so reading a banned book could be apart of that. Books aren't as censored because less people read them and you don't actually hear the bad things in books you just read them.
So. On the idea of having books on bombs in schools...I believe that they shouldn't be totally and completely banned...however I don't believe that there is any rule saying that every school needs to own every book that is not censored or banned. Basically, I don't believe that any library needs to have everything. Maybe there should be a seprate library that you can only check out if you have a driver's licence or are over the age of 18. But I still am strongly against censoring books.
NO!!! Banning books will NOT keep people from reading them...I mean, look at how many people are reading Harry Potter, or The Giver...In fact some of the components that make something banned, are some of the things that create a good story, something to think on.
It is perfectly fine to have a book about making bombs in a school library. It is the school's own choice to have that book there. If someone wanted to know about making bombs they would go to a public libary or the internet anyways, so not having it at school wouldn't make a diffrence.
tomr said: "Either you can live your life harrumphing about things or you can just live with the fact that the world isn't exactly the way you want it."
He could not be more correct. Thanks for saying that, tomr.
Regarding the second question "will banning books keep people from reading them?", I think that banning a book only makes it more subject to be read. By banning a book you draw attention directly to that book, and people are naturally rebellious at times. Banning the book will make people more interested in it. Why was it banned? What could "Heather has Two Mommies" have in it to make it so horrible, hahaha joke. But in all seriousness, banning a book will only cause people to want to read it more.
Question 1: I think that it should be okay to have books on how to make bombs in the library, but I would question if it is necessary. If you want a book on how to make bombs, just because our high school library doesn’t have it doesn't mean you aren’t going to find it anywhere else. If you are motivated enough to make a bomb, why would the fact that our school library doesn’t have one stop you?
Question 3: Alexm, I couldn’t agree more with what you said about censoring. I know on television, censoring is focused around nudity, language, and sexual content. And in music, only language and sexual content really apply. But who where the people back in history who decided that we had "bad" words? Does that even make sense? Way back when, when we first developed a language and how to speak, who decided that those words or those actions were bad? What set them apart from all the other words? If you think of how many words there are in our language (more than you can count on your fingers, believe me i tried) only a very small percent of them are "bad" words. What makes them special?
NO I don't think it is okay to have books on how to make bombs in school libraries. It just makes that school at much more risk! School shootings happen all the time because someone has something agaisnt the school, against some students there, or other reasons. Just think about the danger when bombs come into play! No I don't think that banning a book will keep people from reading it. I was reading through the banned book list and most of the books I have to read for english are on there. Like Lord of the Flies, To Kill A Mocking Bird, and others like that. I think just saying that a book is banned is saying that the book is not for everyone. The way songs and shows are censored is because they are not for everyone. I think that what makes books different from shows and songs is that in shows and songs you get what you see or hear. In a book, the story tells you what happens but your mind has much more room to think and expanded on what the book is telling you.
Will anning books keep people from reading them? No. It is so easy to just go to any book store and buy it. It's just like drugs(sorry to use this as a reference..it's kind of a bad topic)-they are illegal, but peple still do them! It will stop some people, but the fact that they have challenged books such as,"Where's Waldo" makes me wonder whether or not I trust their lists.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How else would you learn and how would you censor a book? Except taking it out of a library or banning it from schools that is all you could do school wise, but even then you could still find it. Banning books are not going to keep people from reading them, because like us we are encouraged and want to read them. Books have good lessons and teachings in them. It would be hard to get rid af bad books and probably close to impossible because most published books have a good reason for being published.
In response to briang, I think you said it great. Why is our society so sensitive about sexual content? I think it is safe to say that without that sort of stuff none of us would be here today. Even if some of your are clones, you must have had a DNA source. And was that person a clone too? But to me, it is odd that a process so critical to society is considered "inappropriate."
I think books are different from Tv or songs when they are sensored becuase they are often censored for much worse things than TV or music is. Music and TV are sensored often when they are immoral or just have some things that people don't like. People don't ban books for small things like swear words. They may challenge them for huge things, like having a book that tells kids how to make bombs, or if something is really against their religious beliefs. As an example, some adults don't like the Harry Potter books, but kids love them. I think adults don't like them because they have magic in the them and many religions have a problem with that. It also takes a lot to get a book sensored, mainly becuase it is so expensive to publish. The publishers are going to fight if something they paid good money for is challenged. TV and music can be gotten from just about anywhere, and young people pay closer attention to the things they see and hear, so parents are likely to be more protective of their kids and try to get the TV and music their kids see and hear as clean as possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home