In the course of discovery, the School Board members who voted to remove the books acknowledged that they had not read many of the books and that they removed them because they exposed students to the "religion of witchcraft." The ultimate questions: Do students have a right to read? Does book censorship violate the First Amendment and at the expense of who? As the final verdict on April 22, 2003, the Supreme Court ordered the return of the books back to library shelves. Background Information The Court cited the Tinker case and ruled that there was no evidence that reasonably showed substantial disruption or material interference with school activities if students were allowed unfettered access to the books.
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
Deciding if a library patron under eighteen should be aloud to read a questionable book is the decision of the patron and their parents. That is it, no one else. A town council or public library cannot have the knowledge to know whether some patrons are more advanced and could accept and understand the somewhat questionable material. If a patron under eighteen checks out what their parent feels is an unacceptable book, it is only the fault of the parent for not checking up on what their child is checking out. Once a person under eighteen checks out one of the controversial books, there is a high chance they can learn something from it.
read another article for your censorship document. me and Erica have chosen to write censorship document about the censorship that goes on in the media. one of the articles i read today was "Book Banning Efforts Bring on Title Fights" The article was about how many books contain content that people consider a bit explicit therefore their banned from library's and schools. In the document "Book Banning Efforts Bring on Title Fights" ,there were groups of people in favor and against censorship. Stevenson Swanson wrote the article, and in the document i noticed that Krug was against censorship in books.
Some people believe the students should have their own choices. They can go to school and succeed or not go and fail. The school administrators should not have to force the students to go to school; however, the law says every minor must go to school until they graduate from high school. Taking away their driver's license is too harsh. The administrators should make a fair and balanced punishment.
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.
Many parents and consumers were worried about their children having unlimited access to the web. This would make it necessary for schools and libraries to purchase filters that would minimize the chances of children gaining access to inappropriate web sites. The schools had to install these filters in order to be eligible for federally funded discounts on telecommunication rates. There were challenges to the Act by the ACLU and other organizations to have it overturned because the filtering was not full proof, stating it took control away from the local communities, and that school was not provided the resources to review the filtering programs. The Supreme Court upheld the Act in June of 2003.
Censorship is strictly review by an authority of any material before publication or dissemination, with legal right to prevent, alter, or delay its appearance. Censorship for authors is that they have to face what people believe that certain of their books contains material that is objectionable on political, moral, or religious grounds and should be banned from classrooms in order to protect their children from exposures to allegedly harmful ideas. Most school boards have responded by physically removing books that are written by some author from school library shelves (“Censorship”). J.K. Rowling is well-known for her book, Harry Potter, which has been censor and banned by school libraries. As a child, Rowling enjoyed reading and writing about fantasy stories to her little sister.
Edward testified in the second trial and stated that he was thinking about pulling his children out of that class every morning, but he was afraid that the children’s relationships with their teachers and classmates could be affected. After hearing both of these trials the federal court ruled in Schempp and his children’s favor. The school district didn’t like that very much and appealed the ruling. While this appeal was pending, any children’s parents or the child itself does not want to participate in any of the activities placed in that part of the class may be excused by a written consent by a parent. Schemmp still felt like this was still unfair and pursued the suing of Arbington School District.
I feel this is a strong premise to support the conclusion that administrators censor what students write in their publications. The author also discusses an incident in which a principal would not allow a student’s photograph to be included in the schools yearbook because the student was dressed in a medieval costume and holding a prop sword. The principal claimed that the photo violated the no weapons policy of the school (Schools fail, 2007). This premise supports the conclusion, since even though the student was not directly breaking any rules and not causing harm to any other students, the principal still had the power to censor a harmless photograph. Included in the essay, the author also speaks about support in the direction of the students.