Banning Books Should Be Banned

Banned Books Do you enjoy reading books? Weather your answer is yes or no, books are an important part of your life. Most students in schools today, learn better if they read over the information in a book. Everyone learns in a different way and not all people learn just by reading the information, so banning books wouldn't affect those people as much, but what happens to the people who need books to learn? Books are slowly becoming less needed due to the use of the modern technology. But this shouldn't be a reason for banning books. People still read books today believe it or not, and they actually enjoy reading them. So all banning books really do is hurt the people that actually enjoy reading them. Daphne Muse in the article “Banned Book Week September 22-29, 2001” states that “the AlA’s office for intellectual freedom recorded more than 6000 book challenges since 1990”( “Banned Book Week September 22-29, 2001”) .Writers today are given basically a rule book for writing books. There are so many restrictions on books that even the littlest thing could get the book banned. Why would the US ban books that so many kids have read and loved for years? Books were meant to be read, not banned.

You can choose to read a book or not to read a book. If a book is offensive to you then don't read it. There are simple solutions to this problem rather than banning the books. Most books are banned because a group of people find it offensive, but why ban a book if only a small group of people don't agree with what it says, that doesn't mean that everyone hates the book. Some books that are banned are banned for ridiculous reasons. In the article “Exploring Censorship” Roberta Linder states that “the book Baseball Saved us by Ken Mochizuki, was banned for objectionable language/use of the word Jap” ( Exploring Censorship”). Banning books for small reasons like these, only make the US seem like they are just trying to get rid of books all