Charlie Postman 802
Dear Ms. Berner,
As Laurie Halse Anderson, the author of Speak stated, “Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.” I think that the argument against the banning of books can be perfectly summarized through this statement. Numerous books, including some of the most well-known and classic, have been challenged for their inappropriate content for kids, hence the name Banned Books. States like Texas, Oregon and North Carolina have challenged books more than ten times each in order to steer children away from so called “dark”, “sexual” or “inappropriate” literature. Recently, there has been a large deal of controversy from parents of some of the kids at Middle School 51 who want to ban certain books, because they don’t want certain exposure for their children at their age or maturity level. I believe that you shouldn’t ban these books because not only do kids deserve a freedom to read the material they want, but some of the lessons taught from these books are more valuable than a large amount of other material ingested by an average child.
There are many reasons why you shouldn’t restrict kids from reading these books. One is that some books are being banned for concerns that are blown out of proportion. The article “11 Books That Were Banned For Completely Ridiculous Reasons” by Chrissie Gruebel states, “Where the Sidewalk Ends, by Shel Silverstein, Why: The only reason there could possibly be: promoting cannibalism, which is something we all remember from our childhoods, right? Shel Silverstein wanted us to eat other humans. Oh, and some people who really care about their plates also got mad because Shel told kids to break dishes instead of washing them, and we have to keep our little indentured servants in line, right? We can’t have a bunch of whimsical poetry giving them any ideas.” This analysis is mocking the fact that this popular and loved book, along with many other books just like it, had been previously banned for outrageous reasons to the extent where you would think it is a joke.
Another is that small groups of people are making this decision for large populations. The article “Censorship and Book Banning in America” by Melissa Kelly states, “Our county has a group which reads the questionable book and determines whether its educational value exceeds the weight of the objections against it.” I think the fact that specific people decide if certain books will be able to be read by thousands of kids across the nation is unfair, because they are not the ones who would be affected by a ban. The article “Banning Books is Bad. And Let Me Tell You My Top 5 Reasons Why…” by Kelly Konrad states, “ Kids should already have a censor in place—it's called a parent. While I do feel bad for the kid who is told he or she can't read Harry Potter books and like to envision him or her tucked away in the corner of the library going all deviant on their parents' asses, I respect the role of a parent to know when their child is ready, or not, for certain forms of literature. But just theirs. No one tells my kids what they can't read except for me.” This shows the point that there should not be one group of people that will ultimately decide if someone else can read a book. It is difficult to know where to draw a line with censorship. The same article by Melissa Kelly also states, “The question that faces us in the future is 'when do we stop?' Do we remove mythology and Arthurian legends because of its references to magic? Do we strip the shelves of medieval literature because it presupposes the existence of saints? Do we remove Macbeth because of the murders and witches? I think that most would say there is a point where we must stop.” I think this quote is highlighting the point that at a certain point of banning books, the people restricting the material has to know when to differ a reason that they may consider just for banning a book, and also exaggerated reasoning that isn’t heavily shown throughout the book.
People for banning books have various arguments to back up their beliefs. The article “About Banned and Challenged Books” on ALA.org states, “Censorship can be subtle, almost imperceptible, as well as blatant and overt, but, nonetheless, harmful...Often challenges are motivated by a desire to protect children from ‘inappropriate’ sexual content or ‘offensive’ language. The following were the top three reasons cited for challenging materials as reported to the Office of Intellectual Freedom; the material was considered to be ‘sexually explicit’, the material contained ‘offensive language’, the materials was ‘unsuited to any age group’.” Like the article states, some explicit books may be harmful because if, hypothetically, a rape victim was reading about a similar situation that they went through, it could trigger something and harm them emotionally. Even though that is a possibility, it is the readers responsibility to know if the books would be suitable for their circumstances.
Overall, I believe there are many reasons that support why banning books is not a good option. It is a controversial issue, and rightfully so. Though there may be arguments on why books should be banned, I think that the overall evidence behind not banning books outweighs the evidence for it.
