Books should not be banned because book censorship is unnecessary, limits knowledge, and violates the fundamental principles of this country. Although some may say that certain books contain graphic/violent content, banning such books is not an effective method to prevent young children from being exposed to such content, and therefore is unnecessary. One person that harbors such beliefs is Christina Healey. In her article “Book Banning can be Justified in Some Cases,” she argues that in some cases, book banning is... ... middle of paper ... ... press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When it comes to the issue of book banning, the First Amendment states that the government cannot make any laws that interfere with the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has commonly upheld this right.
The most frequent being in protest of the government and their political or foreign decisions. Many people are very offended by burning America’s “national symbol” and view the act as “un-patriotic” and extremely disrespectfu8l towards the nation, its history and heritage. Many Americans believed that flag burning and desecration should be criminalized. However, other citizens believe that flag desecration is protected under the constitution and should be legal. It is argued that because flag burning can be viewed as expressive or symbolic speech, it falls under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, and therefore cannot be criminalized.
Desecration of the Flag Should be Prohibited Is it necessary to allow all forms of protest to protect the right of citizens to express grievances against their government? It is not a violation of free speech to outlaw burning of the flag because it is not speech. It will not lead to the limiting of other avenues of protest, of which many are more expressive of specific problems. All attempts to protect the flag short of a Constitutional amendment have failed in the end. A change to the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag is a necessary step to protect one of our most sacred national symbols.
A review committee makes a valid decision to shelve the book, yet there are people, parents, government leaders, and church leaders who think that the book is unsuited for anybody to read (Whelan). Book banning was started around 450 B.C. (Whelan). Since then, people have been challenging books and have been able to ban them from American citizens who deserve the chance to read and to be exposed to others’ original and creative works. Because banning and challenging books violates American citizens’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech, school personnel, parents, and government leaders should respect the integrity of original works of literature and stay away from banning books.
Today’s censorship occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. Censorship deals mainly with the first amendment constitutional. “The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made as to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party’s intention is to deny students access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment” [First Amendment Center]. Though the First Amendment bars government authorities from prohibiting the free exercise, abridging the freedom of speech or practicing religious censorship in the United States, individuals have successfully pushed to remove books from public and ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat some readers might find offensive.
Those who support the no-flag burning amendment argue that the United States flag is a special case. Because it would undermine the constitution and set a dangerous precedent that will make it easier for others enact restrictive amendments to the Bill of Rights, a flag desecrating amendment should not be passed. The words of the First Amendment state, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." (Brief 1) Flag burning, a form of symbolic speech, is therefore protected by the constitution. An amendment revoking this right would be unconstitutional.
The other form of unprotected freedom of expression is the activities that cause harm to the national flag. It is considered illegal to cause any form of defacing of the national flag. However, in a case; United States v. Eichmann, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) the Supreme Court struck down efforts to denounce burning of a flag citing ambiguity in the constitution on the forms of expression (Lieberman, 1999, p.
The United States first amendment states, congress cannot pass a law prohibiting a citizen’s freedom of speech. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest against Reagan during the republican national convention. He was arrested and charged with abuse of an item if the action were to provoke anger in others. Texas court tried and convicted Johnson, he appealed claiming that his behavior was protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.
This would therefore impact the United Kingdom not only domestically but internationally. As well as this a change to the constitution would be problematic when it comes to social progression in the United Kingdom as the influence of pressure groups would decrease, this would be due to the inflexible nature of entrenched laws creating difficulties when amending or abolishing out of date or irrelevant laws put in place, further conflicting for parliamentary sovereignty. This can be seen in America as the written constitution states people have the right to keep and bear arms, this has caused many controversies and still the government have no power to adapt this out of date amendment. Yet, it can be debated that the public would have more say in the initial stages of developing certain amendments as the current government will no longer be able to simply shape the constitution to suit their situation. Furthermore, this would mean that an entrenched constitution throughout the United Kingdom would show structure and strength to other countries, proving commitment to their decisions through a mature democracy.
Instead I intend to inform and at the same time entertain the reader. If there were very extreme censorship laws in what I can write in a report then I couldn’t very well do my job as a writer. This is where my subject comes in. The first Amendment, as everyone knows, states that we have the freedom of speech, religion, and stuff like that. But doesn’t the constitution also states that there are laws against indecent acts that were to be decided as the years went on that would become “inappropriate” in places to do, which just weren’t accepted.