Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Books Shouldn't Be Banned
Transcript of Books Shouldn't Be Banned
Supporters of pro banning believe banning “unfit” book will avert children of negative and immoral notions.
Barkhorn speaks about convincing parents to ban books in “Why We Want Parents to Try to Ban Books.” She says that though a lot of people don’t want the books removed but Parents complain about the books their children read. She says that the books are doing that job, causing the reader to change into something their parents deem as negative and don’t want.
Petri wrote an article called “All classic books should be banned! Thanks, Alamogordo parent!” She states how young children shouldn’t be given sexual explicit books to read without the consent of the parents. The author didn’t see a point in reading the whole
Banning books can limit the children’s knowledge no matter the book’s content. Banning books isn’t a positive thing, it puts a bad effect on their knowledge and reality. Information that these books provide, book banning supporters will try their best to prohibit that as well as stumping children’s knowledge.
In Chans247 conclusions, if the continuation of banning books continue then there won’t be any much literature, nothing to really learn from our mistakes, and if we began to live in a world without books mankind’s culture and experiences will disappear. The author used Heinrich Heinein in the last sentence, “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings" (Quotes). In the author’s conclusion their saying book banning will tarnish the purpose of the book to mankind due to some’s opinions and reading the conclusion this will do the same towards children’s education.
In “Book Banning” Unknown states that you can’t shelter the children from sex, violence, profanity, and racism. Its’ apart of the world and they’re going to encounter it. They state that reading those books (A Farewell to Arms, Of Mice and Men, or even Fahrenheit 451) may help them prepare for the world. They also state reading all types of literature is essential for their academic growth and literacy. With banning of a book can hinder one’s mind.
As can be seen, parents, teacher, librarians, religious groups and the government have been
banning books to protect the children and society. However their banning books based off
their own opinion and morals also has a con too it. In fact, they’re barricading instead of let
these children educate themselves from the reality these books can provide. Some of them
have never read the whole book they’re trying to ban. They tend to forget that these kids are
mature with the ability to make their own choices; want to read something they can relate to
which may happen to be that banned book. - You may have your negative books
but they can teach you something, hinder the mind’s academic and literacy isn’t good. That’s
why books shouldn’t be banned because parents feel it will misguide kids when it actually
teaches them and gives them an insight of the world even from a negative approach.
Some of the children’s whose books are being banned or heard of book banning, unacknowledged the idea.
In Voice’s article “Mankind’s Weapon of the Truth” states banning make an inference that the reader isn’t smart enough to form their own opinion, evaluate the book. - They (unknown) make mention of parents prohibiting books of emotional and physical issues. Unknown explains that these times children are taught emotional and physical issues at a younger age and authors understanding this, try to inform them on how to handle these problems(Judy Blume’s Forever). - Unknown sums up the article declaring book banning isn’t protection but ignorance of society.
“Book Banning” F. mentioned that its parents who want certain books banned. They (F.) say there’s nothing wrong with a parent’s concern for their child but being overprotective and are misinformed about the content of the book. The author states that students at a certain age should decide what’s appropriate for themselves. They also mention that parent who seek for banning hasn’t even read the whole book.
A Presentation on anti - book Banning
Books Shouldn't Be Banned
“First the book was at the library and now my child’s school; it’s filled with sexual content,
profanity, violence and so on. I don’t want this book misguiding my child or any kid, banning
will protect the children from the revolting books.” A parent mentioned in a letter to the
school about obscenity in the children’s books. Books are a source where people can also seek
information or advice. It’s also there for entertainment and discovering unknown or hidden
material. Parents that are pro – book banning don’t approve of children getting access to
books that they feel will misdirect the youth that speaks of drugs, sex, profanity and violence
like it’s a normal, positive thing. From the TV, ads, newspaper, radio and so on shows and tell
how troubling those four things are. However, children get misguided from so many other
sources than a book because a lot of kids don’t read a lot of books or at all. Books shouldn’t
be banned because parents feel it will misguide kids when it actually teaches them and gives
them an insight of the world.