1. Is it okay to have books on making bombs in the school library? 2. Will banning books keep people from reading them? 3. Television shows are censored, so are song lyrics—what makes books different?
1) It is not okay to have books on making bombs in a school library because than you start to similate the brains of the younger children in which than they could become terroist, which is not what we would want to do. Also, having books on how to create a bomb is bad since kids could potentially hate a teacher, create that bomb, and blow up the school... later killing that teacher that the child hates.
2) Banning books, to me, will not keep people from reading them because as in Fahrenheit 451, Montag did not try to stop reading books after he read his first one. It's like a poison and similar to the Lord of the Flies when Jack kills pigs. It becomes an addiction that lets people explore through their own imagination and have a sense of emotions while they read the book.
3) Television and song lyrics are censored because everyone listens and watches. Books are different because people read them and don't have a mental picture of something that is already placed before them rather than creating their own image. Also, their are many types of books for ALL sorts of ages that people can read. A child of five years of age wouldn't read a book that they don't understand and that is beyond their reading level. And their parents wouldn't allow them to read those books. Some books challenge the system or are banned in other countries because of how the government wants to censor what people read. Books are censored to an extent, but not to the point where anyone can't read it.
2. I do not think banning books will keep people from reading them. If anything I think it encourages people to read them. If you tell a child not to play with scissors, if they can get their hands on the scissors they will probably play with them. I think it is the same with banned books. I think there is a part of the brain that finds it intriguing to do what you are told not to do.
3. I think the difference is how fast the item goes by. T.V. Shows are over in a half an hour or in an hour, and songs are done anywhere from two to about five minutes. Books on the other hand take much longer to finish. I think that T.V. shows and songs are censored, because more people will watch and/or listen to them, than spend time reading a book. People can lose interest in a book typically, more often than they can lose interest in a song or show. That means that the bigger priorities of media to censor are the shows and songs.
2. I do not think that banning a book will stop people from reading it. It may cause some people to think twice, but human nature would make people want to read it. It is as simple as the fact that people like to do what they're not supposed to, and they like the fact that it is banned and they want to know why(another piece of human nature). Also, this might be one way that people challange the system.
1. having books that tell little kids how to make bombs just does not seem like a good book to read. I think that school librarys should be more concerned about books like theese rather then books like "Little House on the Priare".
2 Banning books will not keep people from reading them because ther is always a way to bypass the system. a perspn could go onlin and read the book, or the person could find someone who has the book and borrow it. So realy banning books is not going to make people stop reading them.
Books are differnet from Tv because of the fact that you are hearing and seeing. on a song lyrics are differrent because the fact you can mmagine them and hear them at the same time. a book you have to read, but if you cannot read well you have no idea of what youare reading. If you are watching and hearing it is just like a person talking to you.
i think that a book on making bombs should not be allowed in the library because there is no domestic use for bombs and therefore the only resons to read a book on making bombs are to kill people, cuase terror and confusion by setting it off in a very public place, and because you are curious. and mere curiosity is not a good enough reasonto let possible killers learn how to make explosives.
2) In my opinion i think it is useless to ban book because people are innately rebellious. Overall i think that it would encourage people to read them. It allows them to feel in control of their situation. I think people would read them for the sake of the euphoria they get when breaking the law. You cannot possibly achieve complete control of people.
1. I would definitely agree to not allowing a book about making bombs to be in a school library, especially with the US so involved in preventing terrorism across the globe. Another thing to take into consideration is the circumstance. In another class I was told that a threat is probably not real if the threat is ridiculous and irrelevant to the situation. With the Columbine shootings in the back of everyone's minds, if a kid learned to make a bomb than that would be a serious threat.
1. I agree that books on making bombs shouldn't be in the library becasue who really is going to read an entire book on making a bomb for any reason other than making a bomb. I can't imagine that teh instructions are very funny or exciting. If it was in a library people might get the idea that it'd be fun or some sort of other stupid idea like that. 3. I think telivision and lyrics are more censored because a child could easily flip a channel to something that most people probably don't want children to see or you might be changing the station and it just happens to pick up something you don't want children to hear books on the other hand aren't just picked up and read by most children because it's not inntresting. Even if it was they might not even understand some of the words since there are no pictures, so it wouldn't make sense. Book also don't just shout stuff out w=for everyone to hear that's near by instead you'd have to actually be reading.
Banning books would in most cases not keep people from reading them. Unless that said book was completely removed from every library and book store where that book is banned, someone somewhere would end up finding it and reading it. It all goes back to challenging the system too. People want to find a way to go around the system and to read banned books would be a way to do that.
2. Banning books will not keep people from reading them because they are still availiable in other places (internet, some stores). Also, i believe that banning books would only make more people want to read them. People that haven't read a banned book would be curious to read them and find out why they are banned. Therefore, i think that more people would read a banned book than a regular book.
1) I do not think that it is okay to have books about making bombs in school libraries. Some people, young people included, are dangerous with certain information. And there are those teenagers that just have to do what they aren't supposed to; to be a rebel, they just might do something stupid and to give them the information they need to make something dangerous that not only could hurt them but other people as well is not okay. If someone was to make them mad or if they just lose their head, and they have access to a book about making bombs...that won't end well.
2) I don't think that banning books will keep people from reading them. I mean, look at us. We, as a class, are reading tons of banned books and them being banned is not stopping us. We are reading the books because they ARE banned. And some people don't care or don't know books are banned. I have read all of the Harry Potter books, and Little House on the Prairie. I had read all of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books before 5th grade...I didn't even know what a banned book was then. So, just because a book is banned, I don't think that stops people. Unless the government over your country banished the author and all copies of a book with them or something…but they don’t do that here.
1)I don't think it is a wise thing to have books on bomb-making in the school library. It is different to have books on bombs rather than bomb-making, but both are potentially dangerous to expose kids to. Even though everyone has a right to know about the dangers in our world, I believe bomb-making goes too far.
2)If a book is banned, then I would honestly try my best to get my hands on that book because I favor rebelling for something I want. It is like drugs. Some drugs are illegal, but that doesn't stop people from using them (i.e. marijuana)
3) Books are different from songs and tv shows because you don't listen to what others have to say. Books are where how you read them affects your reaction.
2. I think that banning books won't keep people from reading them; it will make them want to read them even more. People will be curious as to what is in them and what is so bad about them. There's that saying that if you tell someone not to do something then they will do it anyway and I think that that is what people do and what they would do when books are banned.
I think banning books and censoring them is worse then when its done with lyrics of a song or a television show. This is because of the general audiance book banning applies to. Readers tend to be more political and well not smarter, but better educated maybe? they are more likely to have a deeper insight... they will question the censorship rether then accept it. This may be considered a threat... intillectuals will fight the system. i think it would be better to avoid the threat of an uprise.I also think banning books is different and worse because, though music and certain shows or movies can offer some educational purpose, books (aside from the web)are the best way to learn. some might say they donate a higher sence of self. Taking or limiting books in a sence is like taking away certain potentials of readers...
I think banning books will not keep everyone from reading them. In my opinion people are often curious about things that aren’t allowed and this would make them want to read the book even more. I think its part of human nature to want to rebel to a certain level. Also, I don’t know how it would be possible to completely prevent someone from reading a book because that would mean it would have to be removed from all libraries, book stores, online sources, etc. So I’m not really sure how effective banning a book is.
1) I agree with brian a that books on making bombs should not be allowed in libraries because there is not really another use for knowing how to make a bomb other than actually planning on making one. It also seems to me that even if someone who was totally innocent before they read the book could want to make a bomb because of it and even if they didn't have the intention of hurting people they very easily could. 2) Of course banning books won't stop people from reading them. I mean look at us. We are all reading banned books in our class. To be honest, banning books probably just makes people want to read them more. Kind of like courtneya said, if you take something from a little kid and tell them they can't have it, they will just want it more.
3. I think people make a much bigger deal about books being censored than they do about things like television shows and song lyrics because books have so long been around and accepted. People can find all the things wrong in the world about watching tv and all of the new music, so it makes sense to them that they would be censored. But then books on the other hand have been looked at as so good, and reading is so great! Therefore, it confuses people how a book could be bad.
Having bomb making books in a school library is completly wrong! Why would somebody put that into a library? Innocent kids could read that and become a terroist. Or if there is a kid that really hates a person or their life, they will read how to make it, and blow up the school or the person they hate.
Banned books will not stop people from reading them, because if somebody wants to read a book, they wont let anything stop them from reading it. There are some stupid reasons that a book is banned. For instance, Harry Potter was banned because of wizadry. If somebody is a huge Harry Potter fan, they will just go to the bookstore and get it. They will find a way to go around the banning.
2. Honestly banning a book does not prevent people from reading them. I know no one who checks if a book is banned before they read or buy it. People do not care who says a book is not okay. Honestly, I think banning a book may actually increase how many people read it. If someone hears that a book is banned then they may be curious as to what makes the book so controversial. When people proclaim something as bad or banned it makes people interested. It is very reminiscent of when in the sevenites it was said when you played "Stairway to Heaven" backwards you could hear satanic messages. People heard this and bought the album "Led Zeppelin IV" just to her that one part. So really banning a book is fairly useless for the banners of the book.
1. It might be okay to have books on making bombs in the school library. It manly just depends on what kind of bombs; toys vs. ones that will create huge mushroom clouds. Toy bombs are fine because kids enjoy the sounds and light they make but they can't hurt anyone with them so no one will be hurt. Real bombs on the other hand aren't a good idea to have in school libraries because there are going to be idiot kids who want to try to make their own bomb that if detonated can easily destroy property or people. If school libraries have miniature toy bombs they there will be no harm done. It's the big adult bombs that need to be avoided.
3. I think it is because of the availabilty. Anyone can turn on a tv or a radio and hear any song that anyone else could. There is nothing that stops a show or song from being broadcasted except for like child block on your tv. You actually have to read books, though. You cant just pick up a book and automatically know everything in it. Reading actually takes your focus rather than being able to flip a switch and see/hear something that may be inappropriate.
2. I think that banning books does not stop people from reading them. It was like the Prohibition amendment. People still drank alcohol even though it was illegal, partly because they liked it and partly because they wanted to break the rules. Banning books probably makes books more popular because people will read them just to discover what forbidden knowledge they might contain. If the government ever wanted a book completely banned from America then they would have to physically destroy all copies of it not just say it is not allowed to be read.
2. By 'banning a book' you restrict the ways people can get book, but it can never be completly banned in society. Everything in the past and present that has been banned or illegal people have found a way around the law. I dont believe that books would be any different. Especially because books are viewed as an educational positive activity. Also when something is banned people know that there is a reason as to why it is banned, and people are curious to find the reason why, and use that curiousity to find a way to read the book.
1) I feel that it is okay to have books on making bombs in the school library because just because you have a book on making a weapon doesn't mean that a person is going to go and make that weapon. Also, we need someone in this nation to be interested in making bombs for our nation or else we would not be able to use that type of protection for out country. Another thing is that if people really wanted to make a bomb to hurt people, they will find a way, whether the book is in the school library of not.
2) Banning books, in my opinion, will never stop people from reading. Words are everywhere and it is impossible to stop the human mind from expanding its knowledge and reading. Reading words and stories and novels is one of the many ways humans communicate and share stories to one another. It is something that our world will never be able live without.
3) Televison showes and sond lyrics are censored because a little child is able to hear words being said, such as a song, and see mental images, such as a movie. Books are different, a five year old kid would not be ABLE to even read or understand what is going on in a book that bad language or talks about issues' that would not appropriate. A book makes your mind think and it is all about the readers interpretation of what is going on rather then a t.v. which actually shows you images or a song that tells you what is going on. A book describes the seen rather then tells the scene.
don't think banning books will keep people from reading them. Some story's are so inspiring, so powerful, they are hard to keep from the public. I'm sure many books written during WWII that were about Concentration Camps or against Hitler at all that people read, even though they were banned. Those types of books that are about undeniably true and horrible things cannot be hidden, because of how they impact the thoughts and opinions of the community. Those ideas spread like an epidemic with no cure and that is the reason those books are banned, to keep more people reading from reading them. But, like a fire, once an idea is sparked, its hard to control the flame that comes after. Also, humans are curious. I think it's in our nature to want something we can't have. Its like a kid who can't have a cookie but instead of listening to his or her's parents, they secretively climb up to the cupboard to sneak a cookie. If a book is banned, people will be curious and want to know why it was banned so they will try to get their hands on it and read it.
2) In my opinion, banning books will not keep people from reading them. I feel that there is no way to actually bann all books. People read every day whether they know it or not. Telling someone to not read is like telling them to stop breathing; impossible. I personally think that baning a book means nothing to people. Rarely do people check to see a book has been banned or not before they read it.
I do not think that banning books will prevent individuals from reading them because people want to do things they are prohibited to do by nature. For example, if one was to come across a note or paper that was labeled "confidential", they would be much more tempted to read it than they would if it wasn't. Books are the same way. If anything, banning books will get more people to read it.
I do not think books are much different than censored television shows and song lyrics. What is different though, is that with television shows you are visually seeing the images that are given to you. As for song lyrics, you are hearing every word spoken. When reading a book, the author allows you to create your own visual in your mind of what is occurring in the book and therefor people interpret it in a myriad of ways.
It is human nature to be rebellious and that is why it is impossible to stop people from reading books even after they have been banned. Similar to teen drinking, which is illegal, if a book was banned, people may start to read it more often than they would if it was legal. This is because there is a certain aspect of adventure and thrill to breaking the rules, which goes back to the human nature aspect of it all. Even if alcohol is illegal, minors will still find a way to get at it, which makes the process all the more bold and risky, which is what it would be like if certain books were banned.
2) Banning books will not keep people from reading them because people will start to get curious about it being banned and want to read it. Reading is something that can be done subconsciously and there is no way to stop that unless the freedom to read is taken away which also takes away the right to think. People like to be rebellious and read what they are told not to which means they are challenging the system.
2) Banning books would not keep people from reading them because it would just get people more curious about it and why it was banned. If it weren't a very popular, it would probably just be better not to ban it so as not attract readers to reading the book. If the book were popular, then banning it would really make no difference because readers have either already read it, or are planning on it.
1. I agree with ealine's first comment to an extent. in my elementary school they banned the book 'Little Red Ridding Hood' because they said it encouraged breaking and entering. That is going a bit overboard, especially since stories like that are part of our culture. Everyone knows them. I think the probablity of a child creating a bomb is small, but in other areas a book like that would be uneccisary. 2. Banning anything is pointless because you can never fully get rid of anything. There will always be 'those people' doing what they shouldn't. Thing like books are way to important to get rid of because they provoke learning and thought and that's what the world loss in F451 when books were offically banned. 3. Censoring songs and TV is way more common then books because in these medias the ideas are actually shown, and seeing things can be a lot more explicate where as in a book you create your own images that can be more or less extreme then someone else's. The more difficult books are harder to comprehend so less people read them, making it ok to have inappropriate content. Movies and music are so popular, people are more concerned e=with what is being shown world wide.
2)i know that banning books won't stop people from reading them, i spent a few summers ago just reading books that had been banned. i think that instead of banning books, there should be a system like with movies, G, PG, PG-13, ect. then it wouldn't be prohibited, there would just be a suggestion on the age or maturity leavel that the book should be read at.
I feel, that banning books would not prohibit people from reading them. If people want to read them, people will find a way. And why ban books? We need to be educated in every aspect of life, not just the comfortable subjects. Reading about a wide variety of things allows us to explore things outside our comfort zone.
1. I definitely do not think its ok to have books on making bombs in a school library. With instances like Columbine, teenagers don't need anymore motivation, or ideas. There is no reason to give that kind-of information to anybody, let alone high-schoolers.
2.I think that to an extent, banning books will prohibit people from reading them. At the least, it will keep law-abiding people from reading those books. However, the people who pretty much live to rebel the law will read the books just to spite the government, or to '"challenge the system."
3. I don't think books are any different than song lyrics or movies, because the people who actually read books from enjoyment, can picture certain images, and things like that. Songs are also just like long poems, or stories, so basically, they are all the same thing, just in different forms.
If a book gets banned, people will just be more curious about the book and will therefore be more likely to read it. That's the attitude of people today; if they aren't allowed to do something, they'll do it anyway, to challenge the system. I agree with Mariah: I think that if there are things in a book that aren't apropriate, there should be a rating on it, such as the G, PG, PG-13, and R ratings that they use for movies. The ratings would be determined on how 'bad' the contents of the book is, but it should mostly be based off of the reason why the book was banned in the first place.
Banning books won't keep people from reading books because it is the nature of people to disobey orders. This is like Jack in Lord of the Flies, he didn't follow Ralph's orders instead he went off and killed pigs because he wanted to do what he wanted, not what he was told to do. This is the nature of people. They don't like being told what to do even if it is for their own good.
I will address the third question mainly because it's the most relevant and honestly, the other ones are just plain boring and in my eyes rather obvious. Television and music are censored because, as was said before, more people watch them. Plus, on television you can see things that formerly you could only read about. For instance, in books you can read about gore, nudity, and other things best left to the imagination if even that, but on the TV screen, you see it. The visualization is given to you. The power to not picture something has left you. Music has always, as a part of our culture, seemed like a corrupting influence especially since it became so transportable...everywhere. For obvious reasons, parents, who are responsible for the morals of their children, want these things gone. The crucial difference, is, however, TV and modern music are primarily for entertainment. In fact, sadly, very rarely do you find music employed nowadays to get people to think instead of dumbly listen on. As Jerry Seinfeld once said, "A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking." Books have the noble goal of communication, of the sharing of ideas, of the pursuit of knowledge, and most of all, to get people to think. Thought is the goal of any quality book. And once you start censoring books, you defeat, if not reverse, their purpose.
I dont think its right to have books that can tell you how to make bombs. Its really unsafe, especially if they are in our public, and school libraries. Its just very unsafe beccause if some moron decides that they want to blow up the school, then they have the information to help them do it. Its not safe to have these kinds of materials available at their descretion, its not safe to the person reading it or to the people around them.
2) Heck no!! One way I decide which book I want to read next depends on how much controversy has circled up around it, and they're usually my favorites!! For example, this is a book I haven't read yet (my mother loathes the idea), there is this extreamly violent Japanese book that the Japanese goverment actually tried to ban. But their plan backfired completely; when the ban failed to pass, it ended up being a huge bestseller, and was soon turned into a very popular motion picture. The book was "Battle Royale" if you want to look it up on Amazon or IMDB.
2. I do not believe that banning books will stop people from reading them because everyone knows you want things you cannot have. I believe it is human nature to do things your not supposed, and if it wasnt, some important things wouldn't of happened (ie. Anerica's Revolution). Banning a book would only make people want to to read it to see why that book was banned.
2) Banning the book would not stop people from reading it because humans have a natural tendency to go against the rules. They would read the book to see why it was so bad that it had to be banned.
I do not believe that banning books will keep people from reading them. This is because the human race is naturally rebellious, and there will always be at least one person who goes against the law, and does not have a problem with it. It almost seems as though people are more enthralled with the idea of doing something that is prohibited, then if it is allowed. I know that when my mom has told me not to do things like go on the computer, or watch tv, i have been more inclined to do those very things (regardless of the fact that she told me not to).
I agree with everyone on this subject, banning a book will not keep people from reading it. I think that it is our human nature to dislike being told what our boundaries are, especially if we feel that the rules are put in place for a stupid reason, for example, a rule to keep us from reading a book. Even if the rule has our best interest in mind, it won’t stop most people from breaking it if they really want to.
45 comments:
1) It is not okay to have books on making bombs in a school library because than you start to similate the brains of the younger children in which than they could become terroist, which is not what we would want to do. Also, having books on how to create a bomb is bad since kids could potentially hate a teacher, create that bomb, and blow up the school... later killing that teacher that the child hates.
2) Banning books, to me, will not keep people from reading them because as in Fahrenheit 451, Montag did not try to stop reading books after he read his first one. It's like a poison and similar to the Lord of the Flies when Jack kills pigs. It becomes an addiction that lets people explore through their own imagination and have a sense of emotions while they read the book.
3) Television and song lyrics are censored because everyone listens and watches. Books are different because people read them and don't have a mental picture of something that is already placed before them rather than creating their own image. Also, their are many types of books for ALL sorts of ages that people can read. A child of five years of age wouldn't read a book that they don't understand and that is beyond their reading level. And their parents wouldn't allow them to read those books. Some books challenge the system or are banned in other countries because of how the government wants to censor what people read. Books are censored to an extent, but not to the point where anyone can't read it.
2. I do not think banning books will keep people from reading them. If anything I think it encourages people to read them. If you tell a child not to play with scissors, if they can get their hands on the scissors they will probably play with them. I think it is the same with banned books. I think there is a part of the brain that finds it intriguing to do what you are told not to do.
3. I think the difference is how fast the item goes by. T.V. Shows are over in a half an hour or in an hour, and songs are done anywhere from two to about five minutes. Books on the other hand take much longer to finish. I think that T.V. shows and songs are censored, because more people will watch and/or listen to them, than spend time reading a book. People can lose interest in a book typically, more often than they can lose interest in a song or show. That means that the bigger priorities of media to censor are the shows and songs.
2. I do not think that banning a book will stop people from reading it. It may cause some people to think twice, but human nature would make people want to read it. It is as simple as the fact that people like to do what they're not supposed to, and they like the fact that it is banned and they want to know why(another piece of human nature). Also, this might be one way that people challange the system.
1. having books that tell little kids how to make bombs just does not seem like a good book to read. I think that school librarys should be more concerned about books like theese rather then books like "Little House on the Priare".
2 Banning books will not keep people from reading them because ther is always a way to bypass the system. a perspn could go onlin and read the book, or the person could find someone who has the book and borrow it. So realy banning books is not going to make people stop reading them.
Books are differnet from Tv because of the fact that you are hearing and seeing. on a song lyrics are differrent because the fact you can mmagine them and hear them at the same time. a book you have to read, but if you cannot read well you have no idea of what youare reading. If you are watching and hearing it is just like a person talking to you.
i think that a book on making bombs should not be allowed in the library because there is no domestic use for bombs and therefore the only resons to read a book on making bombs are to kill people, cuase terror and confusion by setting it off in a very public place, and because you are curious. and mere curiosity is not a good enough reasonto let possible killers learn how to make explosives.
2) In my opinion i think it is useless to ban book because people are innately rebellious. Overall i think that it would encourage people to read them. It allows them to feel in control of their situation. I think people would read them for the sake of the euphoria they get when breaking the law. You cannot possibly achieve complete control of people.
1. I would definitely agree to not allowing a book about making bombs to be in a school library, especially with the US so involved in preventing terrorism across the globe. Another thing to take into consideration is the circumstance. In another class I was told that a threat is probably not real if the threat is ridiculous and irrelevant to the situation. With the Columbine shootings in the back of everyone's minds, if a kid learned to make a bomb than that would be a serious threat.
1. I agree that books on making bombs shouldn't be in the library becasue who really is going to read an entire book on making a bomb for any reason other than making a bomb. I can't imagine that teh instructions are very funny or exciting. If it was in a library people might get the idea that it'd be fun or some sort of other stupid idea like that.
3. I think telivision and lyrics are more censored because a child could easily flip a channel to something that most people probably don't want children to see or you might be changing the station and it just happens to pick up something you don't want children to hear books on the other hand aren't just picked up and read by most children because it's not inntresting. Even if it was they might not even understand some of the words since there are no pictures, so it wouldn't make sense. Book also don't just shout stuff out w=for everyone to hear that's near by instead you'd have to actually be reading.
Banning books would in most cases not keep people from reading them. Unless that said book was completely removed from every library and book store where that book is banned, someone somewhere would end up finding it and reading it. It all goes back to challenging the system too. People want to find a way to go around the system and to read banned books would be a way to do that.
2. Banning books will not keep people from reading them because they are still availiable in other places (internet, some stores). Also, i believe that banning books would only make more people want to read them. People that haven't read a banned book would be curious to read them and find out why they are banned. Therefore, i think that more people would read a banned book than a regular book.
1) I do not think that it is okay to have books about making bombs in school libraries. Some people, young people included, are dangerous with certain information. And there are those teenagers that just have to do what they aren't supposed to; to be a rebel, they just might do something stupid and to give them the information they need to make something dangerous that not only could hurt them but other people as well is not okay. If someone was to make them mad or if they just lose their head, and they have access to a book about making bombs...that won't end well.
2) I don't think that banning books will keep people from reading them. I mean, look at us. We, as a class, are reading tons of banned books and them being banned is not stopping us. We are reading the books because they ARE banned. And some people don't care or don't know books are banned. I have read all of the Harry Potter books, and Little House on the Prairie. I had read all of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books before 5th grade...I didn't even know what a banned book was then. So, just because a book is banned, I don't think that stops people. Unless the government over your country banished the author and all copies of a book with them or something…but they don’t do that here.
1)I don't think it is a wise thing to have books on bomb-making in the school library. It is different to have books on bombs rather than bomb-making, but both are potentially dangerous to expose kids to. Even though everyone has a right to know about the dangers in our world, I believe bomb-making goes too far.
2)If a book is banned, then I would honestly try my best to get my hands on that book because I favor rebelling for something I want. It is like drugs. Some drugs are illegal, but that doesn't stop people from using them (i.e. marijuana)
3) Books are different from songs and tv shows because you don't listen to what others have to say. Books are where how you read them affects your reaction.
2. I think that banning books won't keep people from reading them; it will make them want to read them even more. People will be curious as to what is in them and what is so bad about them. There's that saying that if you tell someone not to do something then they will do it anyway and I think that that is what people do and what they would do when books are banned.
I think banning books and censoring them is worse then when its done with lyrics of a song or a television show. This is because of the general audiance book banning applies to. Readers tend to be more political and well not smarter, but better educated maybe? they are more likely to have a deeper insight... they will question the censorship rether then accept it. This may be considered a threat... intillectuals will fight the system. i think it would be better to avoid the threat of an uprise.I also think banning books is different and worse because, though music and certain shows or movies can offer some educational purpose, books (aside from the web)are the best way to learn. some might say they donate a higher sence of self. Taking or limiting books in a sence is like taking away certain potentials of readers...
I think banning books will not keep everyone from reading them. In my opinion people are often curious about things that aren’t allowed and this would make them want to read the book even more. I think its part of human nature to want to rebel to a certain level. Also, I don’t know how it would be possible to completely prevent someone from reading a book because that would mean it would have to be removed from all libraries, book stores, online sources, etc. So I’m not really sure how effective banning a book is.
1) I agree with brian a that books on making bombs should not be allowed in libraries because there is not really another use for knowing how to make a bomb other than actually planning on making one. It also seems to me that even if someone who was totally innocent before they read the book could want to make a bomb because of it and even if they didn't have the intention of hurting people they very easily could.
2) Of course banning books won't stop people from reading them. I mean look at us. We are all reading banned books in our class. To be honest, banning books probably just makes people want to read them more. Kind of like courtneya said, if you take something from a little kid and tell them they can't have it, they will just want it more.
3. I think people make a much bigger deal about books being censored than they do about things like television shows and song lyrics because books have so long been around and accepted. People can find all the things wrong in the world about watching tv and all of the new music, so it makes sense to them that they would be censored. But then books on the other hand have been looked at as so good, and reading is so great! Therefore, it confuses people how a book could be bad.
Having bomb making books in a school library is completly wrong! Why would somebody put that into a library? Innocent kids could read that and become a terroist. Or if there is a kid that really hates a person or their life, they will read how to make it, and blow up the school or the person they hate.
Banned books will not stop people from reading them, because if somebody wants to read a book, they wont let anything stop them from reading it. There are some stupid reasons that a book is banned. For instance, Harry Potter was banned because of wizadry. If somebody is a huge Harry Potter fan, they will just go to the bookstore and get it. They will find a way to go around the banning.
2. Honestly banning a book does not prevent people from reading them. I know no one who checks if a book is banned before they read or buy it. People do not care who says a book is not okay. Honestly, I think banning a book may actually increase how many people read it. If someone hears that a book is banned then they may be curious as to what makes the book so controversial. When people proclaim something as bad or banned it makes people interested. It is very reminiscent of when in the sevenites it was said when you played "Stairway to Heaven" backwards you could hear satanic messages. People heard this and bought the album "Led Zeppelin IV" just to her that one part. So really banning a book is fairly useless for the banners of the book.
1. It might be okay to have books on making bombs in the school library. It manly just depends on what kind of bombs; toys vs. ones that will create huge mushroom clouds. Toy bombs are fine because kids enjoy the sounds and light they make but they can't hurt anyone with them so no one will be hurt. Real bombs on the other hand aren't a good idea to have in school libraries because there are going to be idiot kids who want to try to make their own bomb that if detonated can easily destroy property or people. If school libraries have miniature toy bombs they there will be no harm done. It's the big adult bombs that need to be avoided.
3. I think it is because of the availabilty. Anyone can turn on a tv or a radio and hear any song that anyone else could. There is nothing that stops a show or song from being broadcasted except for like child block on your tv. You actually have to read books, though. You cant just pick up a book and automatically know everything in it. Reading actually takes your focus rather than being able to flip a switch and see/hear something that may be inappropriate.
2. I think that banning books does not stop people from reading them. It was like the Prohibition amendment. People still drank alcohol even though it was illegal, partly because they liked it and partly because they wanted to break the rules. Banning books probably makes books more popular because people will read them just to discover what forbidden knowledge they might contain. If the government ever wanted a book completely banned from America then they would have to physically destroy all copies of it not just say it is not allowed to be read.
2. By 'banning a book' you restrict the ways people can get book, but it can never be completly banned in society. Everything in the past and present that has been banned or illegal people have found a way around the law. I dont believe that books would be any different. Especially because books are viewed as an educational positive activity. Also when something is banned people know that there is a reason as to why it is banned, and people are curious to find the reason why, and use that curiousity to find a way to read the book.
1) I feel that it is okay to have books on making bombs in the school library because just because you have a book on making a weapon doesn't mean that a person is going to go and make that weapon. Also, we need someone in this nation to be interested in making bombs for our nation or else we would not be able to use that type of protection for out country. Another thing is that if people really wanted to make a bomb to hurt people, they will find a way, whether the book is in the school library of not.
2) Banning books, in my opinion, will never stop people from reading. Words are everywhere and it is impossible to stop the human mind from expanding its knowledge and reading. Reading words and stories and novels is one of the many ways humans communicate and share stories to one another. It is something that our world will never be able live without.
3) Televison showes and sond lyrics are censored because a little child is able to hear words being said, such as a song, and see mental images, such as a movie. Books are different, a five year old kid would not be ABLE to even read or understand what is going on in a book that bad language or talks about issues' that would not appropriate. A book makes your mind think and it is all about the readers interpretation of what is going on rather then a t.v. which actually shows you images or a song that tells you what is going on. A book describes the seen rather then tells the scene.
don't think banning books will keep people from reading them. Some story's are so inspiring, so powerful, they are hard to keep from the public. I'm sure many books written during WWII that were about Concentration Camps or against Hitler at all that people read, even though they were banned. Those types of books that are about undeniably true and horrible things cannot be hidden, because of how they impact the thoughts and opinions of the community. Those ideas spread like an epidemic with no cure and that is the reason those books are banned, to keep more people reading from reading them. But, like a fire, once an idea is sparked, its hard to control the flame that comes after. Also, humans are curious. I think it's in our nature to want something we
can't have. Its like a kid who can't have a cookie but instead of
listening to his or her's parents, they secretively climb up to the cupboard to sneak a cookie. If a book is banned, people will be curious and want to know why it was banned so they will try to get their hands
on it and read it.
2) In my opinion, banning books will not keep people from reading them. I feel that there is no way to actually bann all books. People read every day whether they know it or not. Telling someone to not read is like telling them to stop breathing; impossible. I personally think that baning a book means nothing to people. Rarely do people check to see a book has been banned or not before they read it.
I do not think that banning books will prevent individuals from reading them because people want to do things they are prohibited to do by nature. For example, if one was to come across a note or paper that was labeled "confidential", they would be much more tempted to read it than they would if it wasn't. Books are the same way. If anything, banning books will get more people to read it.
I do not think books are much different than censored television shows and song lyrics. What is different though, is that with television shows you are visually seeing the images that are given to you. As for song lyrics, you are hearing every word spoken. When reading a book, the author allows you to create your own visual in your mind of what is occurring in the book and therefor people interpret it in a myriad of ways.
It is human nature to be rebellious and that is why it is impossible to stop people from reading books even after they have been banned. Similar to teen drinking, which is illegal, if a book was banned, people may start to read it more often than they would if it was legal. This is because there is a certain aspect of adventure and thrill to breaking the rules, which goes back to the human nature aspect of it all. Even if alcohol is illegal, minors will still find a way to get at it, which makes the process all the more bold and risky, which is what it would be like if certain books were banned.
2) Banning books will not keep people from reading them because people will start to get curious about it being banned and want to read it. Reading is something that can be done subconsciously and there is no way to stop that unless the freedom to read is taken away which also takes away the right to think. People like to be rebellious and read what they are told not to which means they are challenging the system.
2) Banning books would not keep people from reading them because it would just get people more curious about it and why it was banned. If it weren't a very popular, it would probably just be better not to ban it so as not attract readers to reading the book. If the book were popular, then banning it would really make no difference because readers have either already read it, or are planning on it.
1. I agree with ealine's first comment to an extent. in my elementary school they banned the book 'Little Red Ridding Hood' because they said it encouraged breaking and entering. That is going a bit overboard, especially since stories like that are part of our culture. Everyone knows them. I think the probablity of a child creating a bomb is small, but in other areas a book like that would be uneccisary.
2. Banning anything is pointless because you can never fully get rid of anything. There will always be 'those people' doing what they shouldn't. Thing like books are way to important to get rid of because they provoke learning and thought and that's what the world loss in F451 when books were offically banned.
3. Censoring songs and TV is way more common then books because in these medias the ideas are actually shown, and seeing things can be a lot more explicate where as in a book you create your own images that can be more or less extreme then someone else's. The more difficult books are harder to comprehend so less people read them, making it ok to have inappropriate content. Movies and music are so popular, people are more concerned e=with what is being shown world wide.
2)i know that banning books won't stop people from reading them, i spent a few summers ago just reading books that had been banned. i think that instead of banning books, there should be a system like with movies, G, PG, PG-13, ect. then it wouldn't be prohibited, there would just be a suggestion on the age or maturity leavel that the book should be read at.
I feel, that banning books would not prohibit people from reading them. If people want to read them, people will find a way. And why ban books? We need to be educated in every aspect of life, not just the comfortable subjects. Reading about a wide variety of things allows us to explore things outside our comfort zone.
1. I definitely do not think its ok to have books on making bombs in a school library. With instances like Columbine, teenagers don't need anymore motivation, or ideas. There is no reason to give that kind-of information to anybody, let alone high-schoolers.
2.I think that to an extent, banning books will prohibit people from reading them. At the least, it will keep law-abiding people from reading those books. However, the people who pretty much live to rebel the law will read the books just to spite the government, or to '"challenge the system."
3. I don't think books are any different than song lyrics or movies, because the people who actually read books from enjoyment, can picture certain images, and things like that. Songs are also just like long poems, or stories, so basically, they are all the same thing, just in different forms.
If a book gets banned, people will just be more curious about the book and will therefore be more likely to read it. That's the attitude of people today; if they aren't allowed to do something, they'll do it anyway, to challenge the system.
I agree with Mariah:
I think that if there are things in a book that aren't apropriate, there should be a rating on it, such as the G, PG, PG-13, and R ratings that they use for movies. The ratings would be determined on how 'bad' the contents of the book is, but it should mostly be based off of the reason why the book was banned in the first place.
Banning books won't keep people from reading books because it is the nature of people to disobey orders. This is like Jack in Lord of the Flies, he didn't follow Ralph's orders instead he went off and killed pigs because he wanted to do what he wanted, not what he was told to do. This is the nature of people. They don't like being told what to do even if it is for their own good.
I will address the third question mainly because it's the most relevant and honestly, the other ones are just plain boring and in my eyes rather obvious. Television and music are censored because, as was said before, more people watch them. Plus, on television you can see things that formerly you could only read about. For instance, in books you can read about gore, nudity, and other things best left to the imagination if even that, but on the TV screen, you see it. The visualization is given to you. The power to not picture something has left you. Music has always, as a part of our culture, seemed like a corrupting influence especially since it became so transportable...everywhere. For obvious reasons, parents, who are responsible for the morals of their children, want these things gone.
The crucial difference, is, however, TV and modern music are primarily for entertainment. In fact, sadly, very rarely do you find music employed nowadays to get people to think instead of dumbly listen on. As Jerry Seinfeld once said, "A bookstore is one of the only pieces of evidence we have that people are still thinking." Books have the noble goal of communication, of the sharing of ideas, of the pursuit of knowledge, and most of all, to get people to think. Thought is the goal of any quality book. And once you start censoring books, you defeat, if not reverse, their purpose.
I dont think its right to have books that can tell you how to make bombs. Its really unsafe, especially if they are in our public, and school libraries. Its just very unsafe beccause if some moron decides that they want to blow up the school, then they have the information to help them do it. Its not safe to have these kinds of materials available at their descretion, its not safe to the person reading it or to the people around them.
2) Heck no!! One way I decide which book I want to read next depends on how much controversy has circled up around it, and they're usually my favorites!!
For example, this is a book I haven't read yet (my mother loathes the idea), there is this extreamly violent Japanese book that the Japanese goverment actually tried to ban. But their plan backfired completely; when the ban failed to pass, it ended up being a huge bestseller, and was soon turned into a very popular motion picture. The book was "Battle Royale" if you want to look it up on Amazon or IMDB.
2. I do not believe that banning books will stop people from reading them because everyone knows you want things you cannot have. I believe it is human nature to do things your not supposed, and if it wasnt, some important things wouldn't of happened (ie. Anerica's Revolution). Banning a book would only make people want to to read it to see why that book was banned.
2) Banning the book would not stop people from reading it because humans have a natural tendency to go against the rules. They would read the book to see why it was so bad that it had to be banned.
I do not believe that banning books will keep people from reading them. This is because the human race is naturally rebellious, and there will always be at least one person who goes against the law, and does not have a problem with it. It almost seems as though people are more enthralled with the idea of doing something that is prohibited, then if it is allowed. I know that when my mom has told me not to do things like go on the computer, or watch tv, i have been more inclined to do those very things (regardless of the fact that she told me not to).
I agree with everyone on this subject, banning a book will not keep people from reading it. I think that it is our human nature to dislike being told what our boundaries are, especially if we feel that the rules are put in place for a stupid reason, for example, a rule to keep us from reading a book. Even if the rule has our best interest in mind, it won’t stop most people from breaking it if they really want to.
Post a Comment