SCPL Teens discussion

Should books ever be censored? Why or why not?

No! I'm actually righting a report on this in my English class, which is funny! I certainly believe that some things should be kept from some people, but why keep others from reading it? Who decides what should and shouldn't be censored? Who takes away our right to freedom of speech and the press?

*writing

I agree with Lizzy K. Books should not be censored. It would be taking away from what the writer wanted you to see about a certain topic/person. By subtracting that from the book you may be missing out on an important detail.

Overall feeling: No, books shouldn't be censored because everyone has a choice in what book they decide to read in the first place so they, in their own way, are already censoring or delegating what they chose to expose themselves to.

What about content for children? Are there things that should be censored in relation to them? If so, how do you feel those choices should be made?

Seminole County Public Library wrote: "What about content for children? Are there things that should be censored in relation to them? If so, how do you feel those choices should be made?"

In regards to children, yes, things should be censored. Although, I believe censorship rights rely mostly on maturity, children could start becoming mature from age 10 where they would be able to understand and take in certain topics. I think once you're able to understand the world and don't just revolve around Elmo and crayons you're absolutely capable of deciding what information you see as being appropriate to expose yourself to. In reality though no one has their full rights until they're 18 and usually if you're underage you live under the guidance and rules of your guardian so anything that you want to expose yourself to automatically goes through a filter to begin with.

My official verdict:

Children's content should absolutely be censored because of the mere fact that it's labeled as children's. Because there is a category called children's or kids books it should abide by the generic association with the word: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority; an immature or irresponsible person; a person who has little or no experience in a particular area; a person or thing influenced by a specified environment. It would be no ones responsibility aside from the child's guardian to influence anything that would be out of those parameters. Meaning no topics regarding: intimacy, dating, profanity, and kissing between two non-family members. Those are things the guardian usually decides how to introduce to the child.

I remember looking in the children's section of the library for a book for my younger brother who at the time was under the age of ten and stumbled upon this:

The book included profanity, and although I (and I repeat, I, because I, personally, am well over the age of 10) understood the humorous aspect being applied, it was absolutely inappropriate for the eyes of my little brother and I was actually shocked to find it in that section of the library which automatically led me to blame the library for the placement of this novel in this section. Which means that any parent sifting through those books, although they will be able to tell their kids what and what not to read, ultimately they will still be furious to the idea that their child could have accidentally picked that book up and added a new word to their vocabulary. Leaving the library and it's staff to be blamed for the occurrence.

PRETTY MUCH IT'S GOOD TO: STICK TO THE GENERIC, AND LET THEIR GUARDIANS ADD THE DETAILS.

The choices for what would be considered generic should be determined by more that one person in order to refrain from any bias being implemented.

Having read that particular book I am aware of what portion you are referring to. However alarming it might feel at first, it is important to understand that libraries do abide by strict collection development policies that take a stance much like your own. Each book is personally selected by a librarian, and it is evaluated for quality, accuracy, ingenuity, and a range of other characteristics. That particular title was questioned and deemed appropriate for the age bracket it was assigned to, because it is critically acclaimed and recognized as a valuable book for the collection. Having said that, the library also realizes that what is appropriate for one child or family might not be for another, but the library does not act as loco parentis (in place of parents) in relation to material selection or circulation. It is for that reason that many books are challenged each year. One parent might find the language used in “It’s a Book” acceptable, and one may not, but that is an internal decision made by the caregiver. This ensures that the library is not censoring its patrons and is providing a wide range on content to suit the diverse needs of all. The library also has a policy for reevaluating materials when they are challenged, and they do expect and welcome the input of their supporting community. You might want to check out the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights too  http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala...

For teens books things should be censored a tiny bit but not to much. Like others said, people don't want to miss out on a good book.

For children books I completely understand. Profanity is bad but in this area most children grow up hearing it. You can't protect them forever because life isn't unicorns and rainbows. Some profanity DEFINITELY does not have a place in children's books but some would be fine as long as the kid is like 7 or older.