Here's the question I want to pose: Should books be banned?
I believe this question that is present in a lot of mind with a lot of strong opinions on the topic. There are people who strongly believe that books should not be banned while there are others who believe that certain books should not be and should, therefore, be banned. Then, obviously, there are the people in the middle, who are unsure or who simply do not care either way.
According to the first amendment, our country grants the right of free speech. A book is an author's form of his or her own speech. If as citizens we have the right of free speech, why should books be banned based on what they authors have written? Do they not have the right to free speech as is stated in our Constitution?
On the other hand, there are certain things that should not be spoken. There are times when it is important that a book be banned. There are topics that are simply taboo to be spoken about in society and, if an author wishes to discuss them, that author should know that it could land them on a list of banned books.
The first argument is made by one against the banning of books while the second argument is made in favor of banned books. People have their opinions, as exhibited by these separate arguments, and they are entitled to their own opinions. So this entire subject dwindles down to a matter of opinions and whether or not a person chooses to allow his or her opinions to show.
The Old King Arthur by Steve Gladwin
2 hours ago