Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?

  • Yes schools and libraries should be allowed to ban books from children.

    Libraries should be allowed to ban books from children, However at the end of the day parents need to be parents and raise their kids. But on this issue I dont think that children should be allowed to read whatever they want. I dont want my kids to live in a society where they can read a playboy or some other pornographic magazine or book.

  • Libraries should definitely be allowed to have a list of banned books, because banning books is crude and pointless.

    Libraries and librarians should be able to exercise freedom by publishing banned book lists. The entire practice of banning a book due to possibly offensive content is absurd. Banned books elicit discussions about society, gender, race and other important issues. The archaic practice of banning a book because it is potentially subversive should be scrapped immediately. The county of a library should not endorse some values over others. The practice of discouraging the proliferation of information does not support the objective of libraries; to provide access to information and to educate.

    Posted by: R4yCher
  • I think they should, because there are so many books that are coming out that are inappropriate for libraries.

    I think a library should be able to determine the books that they want to have in their library. They should be able to ban the books they don't want to have available to people. There are lots of books that come out that are very graphic. Especially when a library has kids entering it all the time, there should be restrictions on what they give out. A book that a parent doesn't want their child reading could easily be borrowed at a library.

    Posted by: KitIittI3
  • I agree that libraries should be allowed to have a list of banned books due to the different age groups who have access to their resources.

    Libraries should be able to have a list of banned books. A lot of children and young teens frequent the library on a daily basis. The list would help keep the banned material out of their hands. If people want the books in question that much they can buy or view them on the internet.

    Posted by: NoakBe
  • Absolutely, libraries should have a list of banned reading material, if not simply to inform a reader the state of the book.

    Regardless to whether we believe books should be banned or not, it is paramount that libraries keep a list of books that are banned. For one, this will allow them to track and keep such material off their shelves. Furthermore, this is integral to the reader searching for material, in that they are informed and given notice why the book is not located in the local library.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • Public libraries that are paid for with taxpayer dollars should never be allowed to ban any book whatsoever.

    While privately funded libraries can choose to carry whichever books they see fit to place on their shelves, public libraries that are funded by taxpayer dollars should in no way be allowed to ban particular books. As long as a particular book is legal to produce and to own, a library should in no way attempt to prevent it from being made available to its customers, finances permitting. It is not the place of libraries to censor knowledge or become a "nanny" to the general public that it is there to serve. Knowledge is neither good nor bad and no person or institution has the power to judge whether or not someone should have access to any particular knowledge.

    Posted by: P0nyCare
  • I agree that libraries should have a controlled section with a list of banned books as well.

    Libraries are meant to have and maintain collection of human knowledge documented in various forms. Some creations may be banned for some reasons based on its unsuitability for the society or to a particular sect. But even the banned books also a form of human creation and knowledge which might possess useful resource. As we have controlled sections such as adult content restricted for younger audience. There may be another controlled section for banned content as well, which may be available for scholars or students or any one who has a specific need.

    Posted by: SaroM0vi3
  • Yes, they can have a list and many do for educational purposes but they should never USE the list to actually ban books.

    Only by having an open society where we can all read and think as we please can we remain a functioning democracy. If libraries were to do more than just have lists to illustrate how wonderful books have been banned, then we are doomed. There is no way a society that is supposed to be free can function if libraries are banning books. We must have access to every kind of idea that exists.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Libraries should be allowed to have a list of banned books because libraries are considered to be the temple of knowledge.

    I totally agree that libraries should be allowed to have a list of banned books. This is because libraries are considered to be the knowledge house of all information whether it is relevant or not. Banned books are books which are banned in the country because of religious, political or any other motive. So it doesn't make sense not to allow banned books in libraries which has been the center of knowledge.

    Posted by: I0rFashion
  • Public libraries should be allowed to have a list of banned books and also carry those books on their shelves as it would be a major violation of "freedom of speech" if they didn't.

    Public libraries are funded by the government, the same government that guarantees "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press". With that in mind, it would be a major violation of said freedoms to not have banned books available to checkout. I think it is also their right, and duty, to provide a list of books that have been banned by the closed minded conservative groups around the world.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • Banning Books Violates the First Amendment

    By allowing the government to ban books, we are allowing our rights to be violated. The first amendment clearly states that, "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." By banning certain books, you are taking away the author's inalienable right to free speech. Whether a book is appropriate, or not, is a matter of opinion, an opinion people should be able to form on their own. People should be able to challenge themselves with the literature that they read. If a child wants to read a certain book, that is up to their parents to decide if it is fit, as for adults, they should be able to make that decision on their own.

  • They should not.

    Libraries should not have a list of banned books. If they have a list it should be of the books they have, where it is located in the library and the rating. If people knew the rating of reach and every book then it would be easier to keep books that have inappropriate text out of the hands of young kids. Or they can warn kids about the content of the book. For example, The Catcher in the Rye, is a banned book that I have read. It has drugs, alcohol, sex, and other things that children should not be getting into, and at the end of the book you learn that the speaker is in a mental institution the whole time the story was being told. But if you think about today's society there are a lot of young people exposed to drugs, alcohol, sex, cursing, and whatever else out there. Reading those things will not change their thought process. Harry Potter does magic does that mean those who read it will be able to conjure the spells too? No, because no one has real powers to perform any spells.

  • Depriving of Knowledge

    Adolescents need to hear the truth to fully understand society, because society is full of many unusual and different situations than what teenagers experience. They need to have a handle on what they're about to see for the rest of their lives. Books are really good resources for finding the truth and for even finding new ideas on how to live an independent and self-assured life.

  • I think libraries should not be allowed to do this

    “And Tango Makes Three," “His Dark Materials" trilogy, “Bless Me, Ultima." These are just some of the books that would be banned from your library because of explicit content. Books should not be banned from schools just because of mature content such as language, religious views, racial slurs, violence, or any other kind of obscene use. People read books every day and to take away the privilege of reading whatever book they want then that would be unfair and restricting many things that they could learn. According to most Creekside Middle School students they actually read certain books just because they can relate it to their life and help them understand more things about reality. Also I think that a student or teenager would much rather read about something exciting and has action with a plot then read about just some plain book about a kid with no plot. It is the students’ choice if they want to read those types of books or not. If a person does not think that a book is appropriate then they do not have to read it. Everybody is different; so to one person the book may be terrible but to the other person it may be interesting or enjoyable. Schools, teachers, adults, etc. are always telling kids and teenagers to read more books and taking books out of the library would be defining our vocabulary and book choice. If we keep all of those books in the library then it would be teaching teenagers more things about reality and expanding their vocabulary and point of views. If kids don’t get the chance to read the stuff that is in those books then they would not be ready for the real world when they actually get out of school. Teenagers, kids, students, adults and teachers are begging to not restrict certain books just because of what is written in them. “Reading books like this is exciting and entertaining! Please don’t tell me I can’t read anymore just because these books have racial slurs or language!” Jadey, a student from Fairborn middle school, says to the New York Times Newspaper. “Reading to me is my life, I take it very seriously. Let us keep reading books, don’t take away our freedom!” Emerson, a student from Westfield High School, said to a reporter for their school newspaper. I know that I don’t read a book every week and that I’m not the biggest reader ever known but what I do know is that it would not be fair to certain students who take reading so seriously to just take away half of the books that they read. Some of the most famous authors such as J.K. Rowling and Mark Twain would be banned. But most of their books are required to be read in some schools. Some people are even trying to ban the dictionary! Which is just a couple steps to far. Books with mature content are found in every library across the United States. If a kid doesn’t just get the books from school they will go to a library to find their books. And if teenagers start to do that then the school libraries will not have as many kids coming into get any books so therefore the library would be no use to people. Also the things we learn about in school and hear from other students while walking in the hallway are just as bad as what is written in the books with any kind of obscene or mature content. If these books were banned then kids would not understand life how it really is, they would think of it as some fantasy world with absolutely no crimes or fighting which is not how life really is! My opponent thinks that books are to violent for students who are still in school but what good book doesn't have any “bad” content in it? The obscene and explicit content is actually what keeps readers interested in reading the book. Are you more likely to read about a murder or someone who is just sitting outside with no plot? Things like this are what make books so exciting and enjoyable. If there was absolutely no violence, language, or any form of profanity in a book would you really be so hooked into reading it? Almost every kid, in school, across the United States would much rather read about murders, crimes, fights, and bullies then read about just some plain kids who go to school with no drama, fighting, language, or anything like that because that’s not how life really is! Real life has people who think differently, who have different point of views. You see people argue over their views all the time in politics, what makes it so different in a book? So many interesting and popular books would be taken out from the library if they were banned. From Harry Potter to Twilight, Kite Runner to Killing Mr. Griffin, even books about SpongeBob would be taken out! There’s not a book you can find that has no content in it, even a children’s book has racial slurs and point of views. One of the principles that makes this country great is our freedom to say, write, and yes even read what we want. But yet countless people are trying to restrict us from doing those many things! Books shouldn’t be judged by their cover, or by their content. It’s a student’s choice to read a book with such content. Books are just life put in words on a paper. Its reality and life and you have to live with this content every day. You hear it; you watch it, why should you be banned from reading it to? Books should not be banned from schools just because of mature content such as language, religious views, racial slurs, violence, or any other kind of obscene use. I say don’t ban books! You take away books and you take away freedom!

  • NO

    this is not right because people are always going to want to express thier opinion no matter what. people are never going to stop saying the things they believe in and others will always agree with them so you cant just take things away and say no you cant agree with that!

  • I do not agree with banning books.

    I think that if you are that desperate to ban a book, then you shuld take control of your child's reading (i would say all people, but an adult should be responsible for his own actions).

  • NO this is not right!!!

    libraries should not ban books because people need to communicate and will do so anyway they feel like communicating. we all have a freedom of speech and that right can not be taken away from us. people like all kinds off different books and if they are taken away then those people wont be able to read what they want to read.


    Banned books. Hmmm. If Mrs. Grundy has her way, I don't get books on such alternatives as Birth Control, Safe Sex, or Alternate lifestyles. If my government has it's way, no books on civil disobedience. If the Democrats control the library, no Rush Limbaugh books. If the Republicans control, no Das Kapital. They both want Ayn Rand off the shelf. It would be tough to name a book that SOMEONE isn't offended by. In my youth this was important, since it was my only source for information the adult world wanted to keep from me. Now, less so, since a kid can get raw porn at any computer terminal. The kids handle this better than their parents do. No one was ever damaged by information. Many have been damaged by information they were denied.

  • No that is bad

    My reason is because if a kid wants to learn something let him learn you stupid people. The reason I say this is because my son he wanted to learn a book about photoshop and the librarian said "No its for teachers only" and my son came out of school said because the librarian and the stupid principle burned my sons curiosity

  • Banned books are a means of oppression

    Banning a book is unecessary. The more a book is banned the more curious we grow about it. This is the equivanlent of book burinings. Limiting our supply of knowledge. Knowlege, good or bad should be accepted and known, but we must be cautious about it.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.