The Pros And Cons Of Banning Book Censorship

What?! Is this a sick joke? Banning books? Wow, okay… let me regain my composure. Language is an extreme medium for some examples of crude behavior but to what extent must it be censored? What one man calls vulgar is another man’s day by day vocabulary; However, the extreme extents of language could be deemed too profane. Though some texts may be too intense to throw into the public, there must be a very clear space for such things to exist without invasion of said space (in subject is books but this goes for all things). In any case, banning a book (or restricting available knowledge in the form of free speech) is a violation of the First Amendment; it is the United States invariable duty to uphold all Amendments and the inadequacy to do so

Legally, people have no jurisdiction over what or what cannot be available to the public. In other words, it is most certainly illegal to physically take a book away from a place or by any other means, obviously, other than in court. While in actuality, social pressure is an easy way to exploit groups into complying with specific actions. “Censorship” Compton’s by Britannica reads,” people opposed to certain books have attempted to prevent them from being read by removing them from school reading lists and persuading librarians not to buy the books and booksellers not to stock them.” In any sense, since books/texts are a form of speech, they are protected by the first amendment making banning them or any sort of censoring impossible due to such books/texts being protected; At least, that’s how it should be enforced according to the law. A case, representative of this argument, has even been decided over by judges in Pico v. Board, “The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that as centers for voluntary inquiry and the dissemination of information and ideas, school libraries enjoy a special affinity with the rights of free speech and press. Therefore, the Board could not restrict the availability of books in its libraries simply because its members disagreed with their idea