Banning books

[TiffanyJade]

I don't think books should be banned. It is up to each individual whether or not they want to read something. To me it is as simple as that.

[booklovingolfer]

Books should not be banned. It is an individuals freedom to read what they want and when they want.

[Bluefirerose]

When I was in high school I was obsessed with trying to get copies of banned books just to say I read them. I specifically remember The Catcher in the Rye. I still don't understand what it was really about, but I remember feeling so accomplished that I had found it and read it. Many things are banned or condemned out of fear, pure and simple. I will encourage my daughter to read whatever she wants even if it is banned because no one should fear the power of original thought, whether it be their own or someone else's.

[lnygaard]

Lets be honest, asking this question on an online book club forum and everyone is going to say: don't ban books. Nobody is going to come on here and say "Well, we should only read these kind of books." We're readers. We want to read everything. Preferably now. And then talk about it. A lot.

[ctestroote]

Book banning should never be allowed for the simple fact that by restricting one person's freedom of expression, you are only enforcing your own. If somebody writes something that goes against what you or what society believes in, then somebody should write something in an opposite view to contradict and counter point what the first person wrote. Simply banning it won't make it go away and will make more people want to read it simply because they can't. Set a speed limit at 65 and people will go 70. Simple as that.

[littlebook]

Book banning shouldn't even be a thing. It shouldn't be someone's choice whether or not I can read The Catcher in the Rye ( or any other book for that matter).

[Alden Loveshade]

Ironically, banning a book can, of course, get it more attention. I know someone who, back in the 1940s or 1950s, heard that Tarzan stories might be removed from school shelves because Tarzan and Jane were living together but had never married. My friend said that neither she nor any of her friends had ever thought that. They had all just assumed Tarzan and Jane had gotten married; they had never considered the alternative. But when they heard about the proposed banning, she and her schoolmates started thinking about how the heroic couple were unmarried and living together. I don't think that's what the ones who planned the ban intended.

[CJDSpencer]

The "banning" of books should be left to parents if they are still responsible for a child. Once a person reaches adulthood, he or she really should be allowed to make the choice if something is "fit" for personal consumption.

[ylisa7]

Some crazy bans:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/harpercollins/1 ... -ever-9npd

[Eric Morris]

While I'm not a fan of banning any book, regardless of content, I do believe that there are accessibility limitations that should be placed on them, just as with any other medium. Just as I wouldn't let my preteen children run to the movies to see Basic Instinct, I would also feel uncomfortable with a school library hoarding fiction that was borderline profane or blatantly erotic. I was reading Stephen King and Clive Barker by the time I was ten, but it was my parents' choice to allow me to do so, and those books weren't readily available to me sans their permission. I'm thankful for that.

I'm sure there are a great many who would disagree with me, and I don't have all the answers. You can't defend Huck Finn while condemning Dorian Gray. But I think there are enough classic works of fiction that are benign enough to demonstrate literature as an art form while not antagonizing anyone's moral code or system of values. The decision to read anything else, outside of a classroom, belongs to the individual.

[kerrigan31]

There is no legitimate reason to ban books. Even if there were it would set such an awful precedent that eventually the bad would outweigh any good that could be achieved by the banning of the book.

-- 13 Sep 2014, 16:19 --

There is no legitimate reason to ban books. Even if there were it would set such an awful precedent that eventually the bad would outweigh any good that could be achieved by the banning of the book.

[j reads]

I don't believe any type of book should be banned, if people don't like the books then they shouldn't read them.

No type of book at all? Not even child pornography?

I guess for aussie-reader's statement, I would need clarification. When I think of child pornography, I have a tendency to think that would fall more into the categories of more visual items, such as pictures, movies, etc. However there are several books out there that are about incidents that could be described as child pornography, such as an author writing a memoir about an abusive childhood; two young boys exploring their bodies together; a young girl finding her dad's playboy or mom's dirty pics and learning to please herself; teens having sex; soldiers raping young children, etc. Should books with that type of information be banned, as someone reading it may construe that as child pornography?

Some may be a bit farfetched, but I think it all depends on your beliefs, morals and values, and how you were raised. Such as the Christians and Harry Potter, its up to the parents to inform their children that this is fiction and not a reality (which some people can say about Christianity, but I digress). Or like someone said, explaining that Huck Finn or Uncle Tom's Cabin was written during or about a time when such things happened, or people were called the n word, but that it is not acceptable now.

Yes there are going to be books and stories that a parent wouldn't want their child to read, and if so that's a parents choice, but it would be beneficial to talk to a child about why you don't want them to read it, and that maybe when their a bit older or more mature, they can read it then. Plus, nowadays, if they really want to, they are going to find a way to get their hands on it, and in my personal opinion, I would rather my child get the correct information about something, that she can later form her own educated decision about, then letting her friends or others fill her mind up with half truths and nonsense.

[Liot]

The subject of banning books is an emotive one; like burning them. The overwhelming majority of posts on this subject do not agree with banning books. Up to a point, I agree with the majority. But only up to a point and that is the problem.

We don't live in a anarchical society, some of you will bristle at that and say you can't have a society and anarchy. And I think you would be right. So if we do not reside in anarchy then some rules need to be set by someone. Again there is a problem there; who sets the rules? If the people responsible for setting the rules are following what appears to be a democratic path, then surely they have a right to ban books that seek to harm the society.

For example: a book on how to build a bomb and where to put it in shopping centre to gain maximum casualties. Perhaps that should be banned even though it is probably available online. A book encouraging child abuse and how to do it and not get caught. Perhaps another book that ought to be banned. But then we are on a slippery slope. At what point do we grab the rail to stop us slipping further down the slope into banning something because it reflects badly on those who rule?

In my opinion we can't simply say anything goes and not ban anything. On the other hand we need to keep a close watch on those doing the banning.

Fran Connor

[rjhaug]

I think its sad to ban books for whatever reason. These stories are part of our history. You have to put the book in the time period "Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huckleberry Finn" these books came from the past. Try as some may we can't change history or events . These events are what shapes our future. Pick up a history from today and see how they are rewriting our history. The events from the past are being white washed and altered.

[RebekaV]

I think it was wrong to ban books in the past and it would be especially bad today. It does restricts a person's freedom and choice, but it also encourages them to want to read those banned books - banning something usually has this effect on people. A really interesting read about that is Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.