Harry Potter

The Harry Potter series is one of the most famous banned books known. Reasoning behind banning this books is because the books have witchcraft and sorcery.

Banning books because of the content is ridiculous. The book is a story and nothing else. Lets go to the facts witchcraft is not a real thing. Things can not poof from nothing, it goes against the laws of nature so the entire argument is invalid. "He said that he thought most children were strong enough to resist the temptation,' said one mother who asked that her name not be used because she did not want her family to be singled out. 'But he said it's his job to protect the weak and the strong." If there is no such thing as witchcraft then is their really a temptation? "students found that their favorite series had disapparated from the school library, after St. Joseph's pastor, the Rev. Ron Barker, removed the books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school." The fact that this is a school, shouldn't they encourage reading since when you read you learn? Banning books just because of the story itself is ridiculous and when you are writing fiction or a "not true story" The content isn't true and shouldn't be banned because of the idea or plot. Banning books is censorship and of course against the constitution, the book series Harry Potter does not present danger so banning it goes against the constitution.

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/10/25/man_from_ministry_bans_potter/

Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?

Think way back to kindergarten when your teacher read Brown Bear, Brown Bear What Do You See? In Texas schools this book has been banned. You might be thinking right now something like "What was wrong with this book?" the anwser nothing at all. The reason this book was banned was because of the author. Bill Martin the author of Brown Bear, Brown Bear What Do You See? was confused with another author named Bill Martin who wrote Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation. Both share a common name but are not the same person. Since Ethical Marxism is about communism, that book was banned and "Brown Bear" was banned as well just because of the author has the same name.

Although banning books is censorship and goes against the constitution, when banning a book you need to double check your research. "Bill Martin is a philosophy professor at DePaul University who has written a book called Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation. Bill Martin Jr., who died in 2004, was a children’s author who wrote Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? The men are not related." If they are not related then the ban was pointless. "Last week, the two Martins were briefly fused into one persona by Pat Hardy, a member of the Texas State Board of Education, who moved that Bill Martin be removed from a suggested revision of the state’s third-grade social-studies curriculum." To combine the names is saying that both are the same person when clearly they are not. Banning books is a waste of time and to ban a childs book because of the author is also a problem. Even if a murderer wrote a childrens book we shouldnt ban the book because of the author, you shoudn't ban it at all. The author may have done something wrong in the murderer example but they book causes no harm and banning it violates their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of press. The book "Brown Bear" does not present any harm to people when it tells of how a bear is observing other things. Banning books is wrong and banning authors because of 1) Their past/history 2)religious/political belief 3) a confussion of names. Banning books based on the author is just a wrong thing to do.

Work cited & Quotes from:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/tweed/brown-bear-brown-bear-why-were-you-banned/20798

Little Red Riding Hood

Little Red Riding Hood Houghton-Mifflin version of the story was banned in two school districts of California because in "Red's" basket a picture of a bottle of wine was found. This is a little crazy to believe.


Little Red Riding Hood is a clasic story that has been told generation after generation. Banning books goes against the first amendment in the United States Constitution. The exception to the first amendment is clear and present danger, but this book does not express that exception. "In 1989, two California school districts banned Grimm's Fairy Tales because Little Red Riding Hood carries food and wine in her basket to grandmother." Having a picture of a bottle of wine is not something a person should be concerned about. "The reasoning cited concerns about inappropriate use of alcohol." If you see a picture of "Red" drinking it you can then say, "perhaps this book is a little inapropriate for the age group." The story is about "Red" going to her grandmothers house and she is bringing the goodies in the basket to her, she isnt going to stop in the forest and crack the bottle open. The book is not at all inapropriate for little kids because in todays society kids watch shows on television where people drink alchohol. If the publishers of the book had a problem with the picture it wouldn't be put here today. The idea of banning books that have a picture of wine is redicious and rather a waste of time. You want you child to get hooked on reading because reading and writing is very important, banning books reasures the idea the books are bad and helps to turn the child away from liking a book. Books are the least of our worries for topics such as the innopropriate use of alchohol.

Work cited & Quotes from:
http://www.adultlearn.com/banned-books.html