Dear Editor: Censorship in public libraries is inconsiderable, unreasonable, and absurd. It must be eliminated from the minds of our town council. If a book is not acceptable for patrons under eighteen, I feel either the patron’s parents or the patron himself should decide so. The town council and the public library have no idea whether a patron is responsible enough to read a book with possible adult themes. Censorship is also ridiculous because most classic novels involve questionable language, or somewhat violent material.
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
For example: if an adults wanted to end their life they would not get away with it, as the right to live law would not allow the adult to get away with this. This law also prosecute murderers for taking an adult’s right to live away. The right to education helps by giving every human a given right to have an education, for example: if an adult was not allowing their child to attend a school and not have education when the child wanted to and needed to, the child or another adult would be able to report them as they are not following the rights. The person who is not allowing the child go to school will be prosecuted. The freedom of thought, conscience and religion helps to safeguard adults by allowing them to have their
Barriers to accessing services These are the factors that prevent an individual gaining access to health, social care and early years services. It may be that they do not know about the services available. Individuals may face more than on barrier to accessing services. Physical barriers * These are objects that prevent an individual from getting where they must go e.g. a wheelchair user is unable to enter a building because the doorway is too narrow or there are steps so they can’t get to the entrance.
Those who would disagree with the idea that the panopticon is an ethical form of punishment would argue that it is wrong to leave the prisoners alone. They would have a problem with the permanent solitary confinement. They would argue that the prisoners should be allowed to leave the cell every now and then. They would have a problem with the fact that the prisoners have no privacy because of the constant visibility. They would not like the fact that the prisoners are not allowed to socialize with anyone else because they do not have a chance to make any friends or even help pass the time by just hanging out with someone who is also in their position.
One way that D.O.R.A impacted the lives of civilians was by restricting their social freedom. Laws such as being ‘unable to speak of naval or military matters in public’ or being ‘unable to own or use equipment relating to phones or telegraphs without a government permit’ were passed. This would have made it increasingly difficult to talk with family members or friends about what was obviously concerning them. “Allowed the police to stop and question suspects, who could be imprisoned on refusal to answer, and arrest without a warrant.”[1] The source tells us that D.O.R.A allowed the police to arrest suspects without any evidence of a crime that they may have committed, and even without a warrant. This shows us that civilians had to be extremely careful even when they had not broken the law, which would restrict what they could do in public.
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 government, like any other from a different country, has censored a lot of information from us that shouldn’t be. Our world may seem under control and going well, but really when we think about things, its because we don’t know something, it has been blocked from us for any reason, or they (our government or any ruling power) try to eliminate things because we don’t want to loose control. On the contrast, like any argument there’s an opposing side. There is a large amount of people who believe in censorship due to information being taken in could cause physical or psychological harm. Also, other factors that could cause harm: national security, pornography, and privacy.
The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee. In case two, the manufacturer was encoding its ink cartridges so that they could not be sold in other regions. This demonstrates that the manufacturer did not apply the principles of utilitarianism in making the decision of coding their ink cartridges. We believe that this decision was unethical because this limits the customer on where they could shop for their ink cartridges and coerces the customer to spend more because of the region that they live in. This case is of high moral intensity because of this restriction.
People believe by putting gun control into action it would put people in harms way. This is because they believe creating gun control laws would ban all guns, not allowing people to have self-defense weapons. However, that is not the case because gun control would just limit the amount and kind of guns people would be allowed to own. Gun control laws might help keep communities safe from the tragedies of mass