So, why do school boards choose to keep such books away from children when hundreds of other people say that these books have academic value? William Faulkner, for example, is an author whose books have appeared on the banned books list and have been challenged by a number of school districts. Yet, in most advanced placement classes his works are a required read. What is it that makes books such as his cause people to ban them? The novel As I Lay Dying is one of William Faulkner’s more famous works.
The top three reasons seem to be that the book is either sexually explicit, had offensive language, or unsuited to any age group. Others are deemed oppressive, racially insensitive, violent, or just plain obscene and controversial. Despite the good parents and school officials believe they are doing for their children, they are essentially keeping them from the knowledge they need and deserve to become an intelligent part of society. Let the
SONG LYRICS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT We believe that the first amendment protects all song lyrics unless the lyrics incite a “clear and present danger.” The first amendment of the constitution is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.” Although we have these rights guaranteed to us by the first amendment, our speech is restricted if it incites a clear and present danger. So what do we do about songs that can be misconstrued about their message and purpose? Should their lyrics be protected by the first amendment? In our opinion, the first amendment should protect all song lyrics unless they incite a “clear and present danger” The clear and present danger clause was produced during World War 1 in the case of United States v. Schenck, where Charles Schenck sent 15,000 anti-draft letters through the mail. The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military equipment, violating the Espionage Act which prohibits all false statements that interfere with the military power.
The goverment has already restricted racest speach, Lawernce explans this when he writes "but the regulation of otherwise protected speech has been permitted when the speach invades the privacy of the unwilling listeners home or when the unwilling listener cannot avoid the speach"(Lawrence,57). This is not an attack on free speach nessearaly becouse there is not a restriction on the speach its self just where it is said. The goverment has already restrected free speech with the creation of the F.C.C the Federal Communications Commission. Which regulats the content of Telavision and radio. If this atrocity is allowed to exsit, though it is clearly forbiden by the first admentment of the United States Constuation.
Jefferson explains that the government should only interfere with religious freedom when it inferences with someone else’s natural right; thusly making the separation of church and state not absolute. Kennedy misinterpretation is unethical because it causes citizens to falsely believe that their religious freedom cannot be taken away. Romney misuses his information when he argues “[w]e should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders –in ceremony and word. Romney is correct that a one of the Founders, such as Jefferson states [w]ell aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free...”. Jefferson does acknowledge that there is a God or Creator that gave human beings the freedom of thought.
But if we are a country of democracy why should someone be forced into reciting or doing something they don’t feel believe in. I think the schools should write their own pledge relating to the education side of things. Having your own voice and being heard is a big part of our culture today. I think the children who didn’t recite the Pledge were somewhat outcaste. So the kids who didn’t say it were perfectly identified as different.
To Kill a Mockingbird should be banned from the educational system because, it discusses sexism and other mature content, uses vulgar and offensive language, and it deals with racism. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is part of numerous educational programs currently, even though it deals with mature matters. Young learners are discovering topics that are meant to be forgotten until a later point in their lives, when they are fully able to understand the consequences of our past. “To Kill a Mockingbird” should be banned from the educational system because it is far to advanced for many students to
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
Many scholars have agreed through analyzing statistics that the No Child Left behind Act has not met its tended target since its conception. The government however still feels that the No Child Left behind Act is substandard for all students from all background. The government has implemented this act in order to gain wealth and control schools because if school districts don't meet their yearly goals of students passing the federal government fines the schools because they are receiving federal funding. The federal government also have educators fire because the students are not meeting the standard
In the author's opinion, this debate, from a federal standpoint, is totally flawed because it is the system of government established by the Constitution that is the key to resolving this controversy not the intent and wording of the Second Amendment. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the groups opposed to the private ownership of firearms, claims the right enumerated in the Second Amendment pertains to the State militias. On their website, this organization claims the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias." The U.S.