I highly disagree. Free press should always be respected. There should definitely be content restrictions for children's books and such but no books should be banned. If there is a book you don't like, no one is forcing you to read or buy them. Having the freedom to publish a book is an American right I value and that shouldn't be disrespected just because certain people disagree with the book's content.
I think that no books should be banned from public libraries or from being sold online. However, I do think private entities, like schools, should be able to choose which books they allow in their library. While there are books that I would rather had never been written, I think that it would be infringing on the author's rights to ban the book. Also, if the government bans one book, that means suddenly that they have the power to ban any book, as long as they think it's material is questionable. Then you have things like Anne Frank's Diary and Animal Farm, and now even things like Dr. Seuss for goodness' sake getting banned. Animal Farm? The government is trying to copy the pigs? Seriously. That would be a scary world.
I know right...that book is all about racial equality. The books they banned were ones with Eskimo, Asian, and African characters...because apparently diversity is only acceptable in newer books...?
No one should be able to ban books, ever. Why? For four reasons:
1. I don't trust the government, or anyone else for that matter, enough to decide which books I should and shoudn't read.
2. By letting someone ban books you open the door to ban others things. By letting someone restrict freedom of press and freedom of speech, you are letting them restrict other things, too. It's actually a logical fallacy, the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
3. Just because one group of people don't like a book, it doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't like the book. Everyone has differences.
4. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (or someone shouldn't be forcing anyone).
I think the only people who should be able to ban things are parents, for their own children, because they know what they want for their children. And what you said at the end, book morality is NOT more important than freedom. Freedom is of the upmost importance.
I highly disagree. Free press should always be respected. There should definitely be content restrictions for children's books and such but no books should be banned. If there is a book you don't like, no one is forcing you to read or buy them. Having the freedom to publish a book is an American right I value and that shouldn't be disrespected just because certain people disagree with the book's content.
I think that no books should be banned from public libraries or from being sold online. However, I do think private entities, like schools, should be able to choose which books they allow in their library. While there are books that I would rather had never been written, I think that it would be infringing on the author's rights to ban the book. Also, if the government bans one book, that means suddenly that they have the power to ban any book, as long as they think it's material is questionable. Then you have things like Anne Frank's Diary and Animal Farm, and now even things like Dr. Seuss for goodness' sake getting banned. Animal Farm? The government is trying to copy the pigs? Seriously. That would be a scary world.
Banning Dr. Seuss's books was a crime.
"Racism"
I know right...that book is all about racial equality. The books they banned were ones with Eskimo, Asian, and African characters...because apparently diversity is only acceptable in newer books...?
It's terrible, I know. Terrible.
No one should be able to ban books, ever. Why? For four reasons:
1. I don't trust the government, or anyone else for that matter, enough to decide which books I should and shoudn't read.
2. By letting someone ban books you open the door to ban others things. By letting someone restrict freedom of press and freedom of speech, you are letting them restrict other things, too. It's actually a logical fallacy, the Slippery Slope Fallacy.
3. Just because one group of people don't like a book, it doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't like the book. Everyone has differences.
4. No one is forcing anyone to do anything (or someone shouldn't be forcing anyone).
I think the only people who should be able to ban things are parents, for their own children, because they know what they want for their children. And what you said at the end, book morality is NOT more important than freedom. Freedom is of the upmost importance.
Okay, no worries