Too often is it forgotten that before the banning of books was an “at home issue,” (Book Banning 1) the federal government tried to cut the flow of inappropriate information off at the source By forbidding the reading of certain books, the first amendment rights of every American citizen are violated. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states that all citizens have freedom of speech as well as freedom of press (Book Banning 1). By banning a book and making it so that no one can read it, the government is keeping the author from expressing their thoughts and opinions through press. The freedom of choice is also violated due to the inability of reading that particular book as an option. Not only the first amendment rights are violated, but also the academic freedom and diversity of thought guaranteed and protected by the constitution (Teachers 1).
Censorship is wrong because it denies an individual the chance to be heard simply because they have different ideas. It also restricts freedom of information, which is vital to the survival of Democracy. With censorship, moral, artistic, and intellectual growth would cease to exist, and people would have no choice to believe what the government tells them, because they would have no other sources of information to turn to. Nazi Germany used censorship as a prime tool to keep the average people ignorant and promote anti-Semitism. The United States Constitution says in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (qtd.
The laws within are rarely contested, however, censorship tends to impede on this pattern. The First Amendment of the Constitution states,” Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. or of the press…”(Charters), meaning there cannot be any laws enacted that will interfere with an individuals’ freedom of speech or press. Yet, this is exactly what censorship in all forms works to do. When censorship blocks out certain phrases from a book, or banning an entire book all together, it is going against the constitution, as both the author and reader have the right to say and speak their mind.
A good definition of Censorship is “[The] Policy of restricting the public expression of ideas, opinions, conceptions, and impulses, which are believed to have the capacity to undermine the governing authority or the social and moral order which authority considers itself bound to protect” (Abraham 357). We shouldn’t have to censor; the media should be able to just put out the facts, right? But so far we still hang in the limbo between fact and opinion. The Idea is for the media to police the government, but as Lisa Orr said, “Nobody checks the checker” (63).
Censorship is when the government puts a ban on parts of movies, books etc… which the government decides is inappropriate or unacceptable (Fact Cite). Censorship is one thing that violates our first amendment rights. Our nation is losing the battle on censorship, and it is becoming an issue. What would have happened if we did not have people in history who wrote against the government and the people in it, or people who stood up for themselves in the Civil Rights Movement, if none of that ever happened we would still be a part of the British Empire, and having our afternoon tea and crumpets. Our freedom of Speech.
If an individual is asked whether or not the government should limit how many times one has intercourse, the person would certainly argue that it is none of the government’s business, as would many of you reading this argument. It is no secret that the previously listed are legal in the United States. The government simply cannot pick and choose what is considered harmful and what is not when the type of harm that drugs cause is analogous to the harm that is caused by other perfectly legal activity. Because of this, the objection that drugs harm users and others in a significant way is rejected.
There are certain types of speech that fall under that definition, howe... ... middle of paper ... ...an trust what the paper’s say because the state runs the media. The constitution provides that “no law shall be made abridging our right to freedom of speech. Therefore all laws supporting censorship are unconstitutional and should be banned as per the First Amendment. If we fail to ban censorship then we give up all of our rights we cease to be free. Works Cited Merriam-Webster.
Government is unable to make one religion the official religion of the United States or tax citizens to support a religion. We also have the freedom of speech to allow any citizen to express their own ideas and opinions without suppression as long as no harm is done to others. Freedom of the press allows citizens to express their ideas and opinions in writing. The benefit of this is that the American citizens can read a diverse perspectives, and become better-informed on important issues. On top of this government has no right to silence the media just because they are criticizing the government.
The controversy peaked in 1989 and 1990 when a federal law to prohibit flag desecration was passed and subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. The first amendment guarantees its citizens the right of speaking freely, but is the act of burning a flag "speech"? It is an inflammatory action that should not be protected by a clause meant to insure that citizens would not be suppressed in their efforts express unhappiness with the government or its actions. Limiting a person's right to free expression is not a radical new idea either; speaking or writing false stat... ... middle of paper ... ...ot believe the founding fathers have imagined that citizens of this country would want burn their own flag. In conclusion, the right of free speech never meant persons could do anything they please, regardless of its effects, and when that effect is to undermine the integrity and heritage of our great country we must act.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Daniels 9-10). This means freedom. . .freedom for whatever reasons, but it's freedom. People are trying to take the freedom of choosing, choosing what books we each want to read, away.