Does book banning really help kids?
Does banning books really help kids out from seeing certain things or keep them safe from seeing all the stuff that’s too mature for them or being seen from another person’s perspective. Banning books has been a big issue that has been happening recently all across America. If books keep happening, then it can cause kids to have a lack of knowledge on certain topics. Banning books doesn’t really help kids that much. In fact it can actually hurt them.
Many times when books are banned in schools, they are stories about Black or LGBTQIA+ people. This is happening because parents do not want their kids to view books from a different person’s perspective. This has also caused a lot of people to feel left out when they do not have a book that has a character that is more similar to them. Therefore this leads to discrimination in schools when there are not many books about them. Therefore Banning books with stories about people who are different from them is discriminating and prevents kids from seeing the world in a different point of view
A lot of times when books get banned from schools it’s considered too mature for their kid. While parents do have the right to say what is allowed for their kid and what is not allowed, The parents do not have a right to take books away from other people’s kids just because the book is too mature for their kid. Each kid matures at different rates so therefore some of them might be reading at a higher reading level then others. If one book is banned from the school library just because one parent thinks the book is too mature for their kid, does not mean that the book should be taken away from someone else’s kid. Instead the parent can send a note to the school to not allow their kid to check out certain books at the library but then other kids are able to view that book if they want so that way books do not get taken away from others.
Books are a form of freedom of speech and when books get banned from the schools they are taking away freedom of speech. The government cannot ban books except if the book has a type of speech that is unprotected. The first amendment is freedom of speech and if a book is banned from the school it is basically taking away freedom of speech from kids. When that happens kids will feel like they have no freedom of speech. Unless the government says that you cannot have these books in school, then they do not have a right to take the book away
Book banning has been a real major issue that has been going on today that is causing a lot of problems. As these examples show, book banning is not a good idea. It prevents kids from being educated, takes away their speech and it prevents kids from reading in general. In the end book Bannings do not really help kids at all. If kids just keep getting sheltered then they really won’t be able to learn fully.
References
Kayata, Erin. “Does Banning Books Really Help Children?” Northeastern Global News, 18 Sept. 2023, news.northeastern.edu/2023/09/14/banning-books-harm-children/
Goldberg, Erica, Associate Professor of Law. “When Are Book Bans Unconstitutional? A First Amendment Scholar Explains.” The Conversation, 12 Sept. 2023, theconversation.com/when-are-book-bans-unconstitutional-a-first-amendment-scholar-explains-176225
We need links to these sources.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
When you give feedback, I would like you to focus on my opening paragraph and my freedom of speech paragraph because I don’t think those ones are very strong
YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK FOR FEEDBACK ON YOUR DRAFT, REBELPILOT.
PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE.
WHEN YOU’RE READY TO MAKE REVISONS POST A CAUSAL REWRITE AND MAKE REVISIONS THERE, NOT HERE.
In response to your feedback request, I agree, RebelPilot. This is not a successful paragraph. Let’s take it one sentence at a time.
INTRODUCTION
—You cannot engage a reader’s attention with vague questions about “seeing certain things” and “stuff that’s too mature for them” or “seen from another person’s perspective.”
—You gain nothing by being coy. And we will not care what you conclude if we don’t know what your question is.
—Let me offer some possible interpretations of your vague categories that may or may not match with what you have in mind.
—By “certain things” you could mean animal brutality, gang warfare, or men kissing men.
—By “stuff that’s too mature for them” you could mean explicit sexuality, the history of evolutionary theory, or advice on setting up retirement accounts.
—By “seen from another person’s perspective” you could mean Nazi propaganda, Nelson Mandela’s revolutionary philosophy, or dogs are better than cats.
—Yes, it has. But so has the question of whether the PGA is losing the world’s best pro golfers to the Liv tournament.
—Agreed. And lack of knowledge is bad. But what are we talking about here? Access to radical feminist ideology or the debate about whether or not quarks exist?
—Start here, RP. Say clearly what a book ban deprives kids of. Say exactly how that hurts them.
—You DON’T HAVE TO WORRY about giving away your hypothesis TOO EARLY.
—You SHOULD WORRY about sharing your hypothesis TOO LATE.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH PARAGRAPH
—Well, . . . books aren’t “freedom of speech.” Books are a form of speech, yes.
—When speech is banned, THAT’s taking away freedom of speech.
—When books are banned from schools, we often applaud, right?
—We don’t want pornography or recipes for bombs that can be made in chemistry class available in the school library. Right?
—So, unless you’re going to argue that there are GOOD times and BAD times to limit freedom of speech in the library, we don’t know what to make of your claim.
—You could be right, but you’ll have to be very clear on what “type of speech” is unprotected. There aren’t many. “Incitement to riot” and “hate speech” are the only two that come to mind. You could spell those out in just a few words and remove all doubt about what you mean.
—I think we’ve talked about this already.
—”Access to material” is not “freedom of speech.”
—Movie theaters keep kids out of R-rated movies. We don’t object.
—That’s “denial of access,” but it doesn’t limit the filmmaker’s “freedom of speech.”
—Kids may FEEL LIKE they have no freedom of speech, but that doesn’t make it so.
—Nothing in what you’ve said in your essay limits a child’s or a student’s freedom of speech, even if their access to material WHICH THE AUTHORS HAD THE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS is forbidden.
—THAT is a pretty clear claim, RebelPilot, but I doubt that you actually mean it.
—You’re essentially saying school libraries should contain and provide access to anything that can legally be published in the United States.
—I love a bold premise, but I doubt you intend to actually defend that outrageous claim.
You’ve taken on a very important and substantive premise, RebelPilot. I applaud you for it. But you don’t seem prepared to meet the exacting criteria on which your argument will be judged. Everybody loves freedom of speech (for themselves), but they don’t like the idea of someone else indoctrinating their kids with propaganda. You haven’t begun to spell out what people mean by propaganda. For some it’s “every American has a right to free healthcare.” For some it’s “gender is a myth.” For some it’s “Everybody who wasn’t born here should go back to where they came from.”
For a topic as big as book banning, you should narrow your perspective radically. Pick a small battle. You can’t win the war in 3000 words.
Provisionally graded. I’ve posted the same provisional grade in the Causal Rewrite category at Canvas, even though your Causal Rewrite post doesn’t exist yet. Revisions are always encouraged (in fact, they’re required if this essay is going into your Portfolio), and Regrades are always available following substantial improvements.