One of the most important reasons to why library censorship is unacceptable is that it limits our information resources. In other words, we will not have the right to receive and source our assignments with quotes and information from banned books, nor will we have the right to read certain books from some of our favorite authors. There are many books that are banned from people or more likely students under the age of 17 (Koss 29). One of these books is
This is mainly due to the purpose of the representation, which is to inform based on factual detail and not to give out a message meaning the representation is free of Phillip Sauvain’s opinion. However, the text extract does not comment on supporters of the war although this could possibly be referred to in other sections of the book. Representation 3 being a cartoon fully supports the cartoonist anti-war point of view and, by that measure cannot be objective. The purpose of the cartoon is to give out a message and to provoke debate and John Fischetti does this by satirising the anti-war movement and stereotyping the characters. He also makes a conscious decision about what information to include and what to leave out in order to support his point of view and the anti-war message the representation is trying to give out.
So who really played the pivotal role in the terrible events of Kristallnacht, was it a ‘spontaneous event by the German people or was the blame to lie elsewhere? Many of the sources blame the German people for Kristallnacht, suggesting that it may have been something “spontaneous”. For example Source B is a secret report prepared by the Nazi Supreme Court shortly after Kristallnacht. This source states that the German people were to blame for Kristallnacht in a ‘spontaneous’ attack on Jewish homes. ‘Demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged if they started spontaneously.’ However as this report was prepared and published by the Nazis it is likely that they may have twisted the truth and pushed the blame onto the people to save themselves from blame.
Darlene is not really oversensitive, because according to the case, Darlene wasn’t crazy about the smell of cigarettes under the best of circumstances, but on that particular day, she was caught in the box, and the thoughts of the cigarette fumes made her felt slightly nauseated. Likewise Charles Renford, was not in the best position and will not be fair to Frank and Alice, if they had to be ordered to stop smoking in the office of which they had been doing for quite some time. Although I do not agree to smoking in the office because it’s a place of public area and not an area designated for smoking, but if they were allowed to do smoke in the office by their organization, then they have the right to do so without any interference. If I were Charles, I would ask Frank and Alice to help Darlene Lambert that day, by looking up for the files she needed to complete the job at that particular period, since she was not ready to be in that office because of the smell of the old smoke. I will then try to council Frank and Alice if possible, not to smoke in their office because of the sake of other employees who are non-smokers and not necessary banning or ordering them to stop smoking, but will try to come to a comprise with them.
Dear Mr. Bratt: Some people consider sex, drugs, violence, and strong language as inappropriate. Others could care less about what they see on the Web. Others don’t even think twice about sex crimes in the newspaper or hearing someone cuss their mother out on TV. Some couldn’t be any more neutral about the inappropriateness of their information sources. Others so strongly that they censor this material so they can no longer view it.
An example of these was the non importation movement. In this movement, Americans stopped buying goods from the British goods as a protest against stamp tax. This action was not defiant in nature and did not call for punishment from the British government. On the contrary, it put a lot of pressure on the government and forced it to react by repealing the stamp act (Greene & Pole, 2004). Violent reactions were, therefore, not effective as they received violent reaction from the government and did not bring the desired change to the colonists.
No books should ever be banned because for each book that is banned, there possibly could be one life lesson that will not be learned by the next generation. Censorship of books in schools and libraries is wrong for it limits what students can potentially learn. Books such as To Kill a Mocking Bird, Of Mice and Men, and others teach valuable life lessons, which is why they are considered classics. Books such as these are being banned for they have questionable material. In the same book introduction as the opening quote, Judy Blume wrote, “Those who were most active in trying to ban books cam from the ‘religious right’ but the impulse to censor spread like a contagious disease.
The bombs affected the children of the future, who are not to be blamed for anything that took place in the war. They also violate the Just War Theory, and did not give the US any tactical advantage in the war- the bombings were simply experiments to show the world America’s military standing. Along with that, US should not have taken revenge for Pearl Harbor on such a large scale. Some people argue that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified as the Americans had the right to take revenge for the attack that occurred at Pearl Harbor. This isn’t true.
Lord Henry responds to this by noting that Dorian was beginning to moralize, and this was a negative thing because he believed that the books and art themselves did not make morals, therefore art could not be poison. Lord Henry argues, “As for being poisoned by a book, there is no such thing as that. Art has no influence upon action. It annihilates the desire to act. It is superbly sterile.
It is not ‘should cigarettes be made illegal’: of course they shouldn’t. The question is whether or not the government should have more influence over the lives of its citizens. Clearly, the answer is no. A typical fallback argument for anti-smoking proponents is second hand smoke. What makes this argument so porous is the fact that, while second hand smoke is demonized, the masses often have no concern for and little awareness of non-tobacco threats which are potentially hazardous.