Our discussion in class
about banned children books got me thinking about where freedom of speech came
in. Shouldn’t authors have the
right to write what they want without the fear that it might be taken off the
shelves? And should kids be
limited in what they can read? Many
of the books that have been banned have been banned for very minor details or
were heavily influenced by a bais opinion. For example The Diary
of Ann Frank was banned because it is “too depressing”. Yet, all the components of depression
in the book are realistic. I do
not think children should be sheltered from this; they should at least have the
option to read it.
One
of my favorite childhood book; Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, by William Steig represents characters as animals. The book was banned because the policemen
were pigs. I read this book dozens
of times as a child and I never noticed this minor detail.
Some
people may argue that there should be stricked rules on what kids are exposed
too because they are unable to make the right decisions for themselves. I agree
that censoring material that children have access to is necessary to a degree,
but the above examples are very extreme and unnecessary. According to the ALA President Carol
Brey-Casiano, "Not every book is right for every person, but providing a
wide range of reading choices is vital for learning, exploration, and
imagination. The abilities to read, speak, think, and express ourselves freely
are core American values." This
suggests that there should be less intense bans on books. I completely agree,
what do you think?
