Two great reads. Remember, September ends on Wednesday.
1. Finding censorship where there is none: This is an opinion piece about library censorship, or maybe not. While it talks about banned book week, it more closely looks at stats that tell a different story of censorship than many people would like to believe. This is a great lesson on why context to statistics and the source of statistic is so important. Have any books ever been banned from MA? Are there any books Derek would refuse to purchase?
2. Women at Arms — Mothers at War: A compelling read about women in the military and the drawbacks of being on active duty while being a mom. Look closely at the variety of sources, the depth of coverage, and the breadth of ideas presented. How does the NYTimes remain objective? What makes this a universally readable piece?
2 comments:
Sir Frog is Alec.
I'm sorry if I gave no room for anyone else to comment, I just had alot of ideas.
Even though I am against banning books, I decided to argue my opinion as if I were arguing the Opinion writer, not a random person on the street who wants to ban books. The article asked if people against banned books were restricting free speech. I personally believe that this article was not correct. Yes, the people against banning books did call book banners false patriots and burners. Those criticisms have substance. A patriot is someone who cares about his or her country but does not necessarily need to recite the pledge of allegiance everytime he or she sees a flag. You do not have to love President Obama to be a patriot but you should at least want the country to suceed in gettin out of the recession. You should at least respect an aspect of your country's legacy that does not harm anyone. The 1st Amendment's right to freedom of the press and the great American writers are parts of our country's legacy we should respect. Banning books takes away the freedom of the press and distorts the view of famous literature. Is it coincidence that the books that are banned are expressing unpopular ideas (To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn both deal about race. Harry Potter is a fantasy story about magic but some restrictive parents may believe it is harmful for their kids to read.)
The U.S has always been supportive of expressing any ideas that do not pose a clear and present danger to society. These ideas clearly do not pose a clear and present danger. This screaming violates the U.S's principles and therefore should be considered unpatriotic.
Now another subject, the Opinion writer to the Conservative Wall Street Journal owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News mentioned the word "burners" as the Government's description of banning books. Metaphorically, they are buring knowledge. I bet most of you have heard your teachers say this but books help people do well in school and books help expand creativity. If people could not question and were not literate, all they would know is what people tell them. People who do not read much generally (not always) do not write as well as people who do read. If parents want some of the best literature in the world banned, they are asking for a decline in great future literature and polished grammar. They are asking for a bland society. It is right to call them burners because they are burning rich literatue and knowledge.
The last point I wanted to mention is that the Opinion writer suggests that the Government is doing the banning. Well, my question is that how should someone who speaks out against free speech be for free speech. If the person looked at it rationally, they would see that they are using free speech to speak against free speech. I believe it is impossible to do both at the same time. Since the book banners probably dislike the concept of free speech, they should understand its values. This might open their minds about banning books. About the Government, they are protecting free speech or attacking free speech that attacks free speech. Two wrongs do not make a right and attacking free speech that attacks free speech is not strapping down voices.
Final saying: The Government may restrict speech if there is a clear and present danger. Less fantastic writing and less intelligence defintely poses a clear and present danger to society.
Censorship:
The thing that I found most interesting about this article is how while the stereotypical idea of censorship involves the big bad government fighting the average Joe writer to suppress revolutionary ideas, in the case of this article, average (albeit arguably overprotective) citizens are petitioning government representatives against books that for the most part would broaden the horizons of the reader. After actually looking at the map (http://bannedbooksweek.org/Mapofbookcensorship.html) I was surprised to see that censorship or attempted censorship is the most common in what could be considered the more progressive areas of the country.
I agree with the author of the piece that it is strange for such a large agency as the ALA to fight many often unsuccessful and isolated incidents. I would side with the ALA in arguing that it is important to allow the public to read whatever they want, however the type of campaign they are running seems ridiculous in the age of the internet where information always travels faster than those trying to stop it. It might be more productive for the ALA to promote ways for authors of books on controversial topics to spread their cause rather than pressing this issue.
Post a Comment