Authors, Writers, Publishers, and Book Readers
Should books ever be banned?
What are your opinions on this? I feel a reader should be able to choose for themselves whether they want to read a controversial book. If it's about a crime that was committed, the guilty party shouldn't profit from publication.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Viviana Arteaga on
-
True on the profit part. And banning books is plain insanity!!! I wanna say meaner words but I hold myself back. lol
-
Permalink Reply by Kay Elizabeth on
-
I must have caught a headline somewhere that made me think about that. I just discovered last week was Banned Books Week, which is according to this article is celebrated by the American Library Association (ALA). The acting president makes her point well.
"We're certainly seeing increased efforts to remove or restrict books that are aimed for young adults," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, acting director of ALA's office for intellectual freedom. "There are parents who believe that young people under 18 shouldn't be having access to books that discuss sex or drug use, or homosexuality, and we understand that. "But the fact that they hold those choices and values shouldn't mean other families and young adults shouldn't have access to those ideas. A parent can ask for different choices for their child, but their choices shouldn't mean that the rest of the community loses access to a book," Caldwell-Stone said.
Hear, hear.
Viviana Arteaga said:True on the profit part. And banning books is plain insanity!!! I wanna say meaner words but I hold myself back. lol
-
-
True just because a set of people don't want their child read that they shouldn't block other people so they can take away the child's tv games and music lock them in a closet.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Kunz on
-
I think that's bull. I have to agree with Viviana and Caldwell-Stone. Just because a group of parents don't want their kid reading one specific book, like... I dunno, Catcher and the Rye, for instance; I know that one was under the spotlight to get removed from Schools because of its content, but the rest of the world shouldn't lose the option to read that book, after all, it was a really good book.
That's almost as bad as banning a movie that's rated PG-13 because it has one swear word in it. Its not like kids under the age of 13 don't already know the meaning of said word, or at least the majority of them have heard it enough that hearing it on the big screen is going to scar them for the rest of their life.
-
Permalink Reply by Callie Leah on
-
Banning books is complete nonsense. Maybe you could ban some inappropiate books from SCHOOL library, (such as books that deal with rapists, gory murderers, ect.) but a public libray is just that. Public. I think that parents can prevent their kids from reading inappropiate books, but why punish the kids whose parents don't care what they read? Cartain kids have their own restrictions, and if they break them, that's their own business. My elementary school library banned the twilight books until I was in the sixth grade. And I can't blame them for the third and fourth books, but the first and second were completely appropiate. (exept from a few murder scenes here and there)
-
-
The Twilight book are not even graphic they insinuate they don't really describe anything. Okay books no reason for any kind of banning unless the over dramatization of the fan-dom it has is banned then I'm ok.
-
Permalink Reply by Sandra Kitchen on
-
Banning books should never be allowed, if you know your history there were other times that the freedom to read books was taken away.
If it is not an age appropriate book, then it is up to parents to set the limitations, not to have books kept out of libraries.
If it is a book written by someone convicted of a violent crime, then no they should not benefit from it, rather their victims, victims families or a cause that helps this type of victim. (better get off my soap box now)
-
Permalink Reply by scribbler on
-
Yes! It should be the right of the parents to choose until a child is old enough to make their own choices. I don't want it to be decided by whoever happens to be the ruling party of the day.
Viviana Arteaga said:True just because a set of people don't want their child read that they shouldn't block other people so they can take away the child's tv games and music lock them in a closet.
-
-
And how many years ago was The Catcher in the Rye written? I'll tell you. Sixty five almost. It came out in 1945. Society is unrecognizable today compared to society then. The language in it is obscene and includes the F-word. That's one of the main objections about the book. Do kids today hear anything different on the school bus? I don't think so.
Andrew Kunz said:I think that's bull. I have to agree with Viviana and Caldwell-Stone. Just because a group of parents don't want their kid reading one specific book, like... I dunno, Catcher and the Rye, for instance; I know that one was under the spotlight to get removed from Schools because of its content, but the rest of the world shouldn't lose the option to read that book, after all, it was a really good book.
That's almost as bad as banning a movie that's rated PG-13 because it has one swear word in it. Its not like kids under the age of 13 don't already know the meaning of said word, or at least the majority of them have heard it enough that hearing it on the big screen is going to scar them for the rest of their life.
-
-
I haven't read them so can't comment on the appropriateness for a school library. Callie, you make a very good point. Why not have them in the public library? With schools the fear is probably more that they would be on the wrong end of a lawsuit if a child that was too young read the content. I can understand them being more cautious.
Callie Leah said:Banning books is complete nonsense. Maybe you could ban some inappropiate books from SCHOOL library, (such as books that deal with rapists, gory murderers, ect.) but a public libray is just that. Public. I think that parents can prevent their kids from reading inappropiate books, but why punish the kids whose parents don't care what they read? Cartain kids have their own restrictions, and if they break them, that's their own business. My elementary school library banned the twilight books until I was in the sixth grade. And I can't blame them for the third and fourth books, but the first and second were completely appropiate. (exept from a few murder scenes here and there)
-
-
That's the difference. What's objectionable to one generation may be less so in another or completely unobjectionable even by the time a few decades have passed. Why deny future readers the right to choose?
Parents, not governments, should decide. You're absolutely right Sandra. Don't put away the soapbox! :)
Sandra Kitchen said:Banning books should never be allowed, if you know your history there were other times that the freedom to read books was taken away.
If it is not an age appropriate book, then it is up to parents to set the limitations, not to have books kept out of libraries.
If it is a book written by someone convicted of a violent crime, then no they should not benefit from it, rather their victims, victims families or a cause that helps this type of victim. (better get off my soap box now)
-
-
I agree on no profiting from anything such as that Kay. The only books I feel I would strenuously object to are books that incite hatred.
As a reader, you don't need to agree or disagree with every book's content. You can complain about it all you want. But to remove the book reader's choice of whether to ignore or read it, or that of a writer to be denied sharing their words, is wrong. Books reflect the thinking and attitudes of our times. Freedom of expression has to be championed. It's as simple as that.
Sponsored Links
Most Active Members
Publishers Weekly
NPR Books
NY Times Book Reviews
© 2024 Created by Authors.com.
Powered by
