conuly | Oy vey....

You're viewing

conuly's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

Current Mood: sad

"Filthy language," said Conder of the profanity. "I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids."

Repeat after me: Nobody was ever harmed for hearing or reading profanity. Nobody. And by the 9th grade, there's very little in the way of profanity that your kid hasn't heard yet.

This is very nicely summed up here:

When did we have to start saying these things? "Book burnings aren't right." "Torture is bad." "The accused deserve trials." "You can't spend more than you earn." "Borrowing is not earning." "Wars suck." "It's called Social Security because it's supposed to be *more* secure than the stock market."

*sighs* Well, I can always move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, study their folkways. Bet they don't burn books.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

conuly

What about the rights of the child to read without censorship? Did you hear the atrocious stats for the number of high schoolers who think the first amendment "goes too far"? How are we going to teach kids to appreciate the first amendment if we don't even trust their judgment, and allow their parents to censor their reading material?

The rights of the parents do not supercede the rights of the children.

From:

meryls-corner.livejournal.com

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.
Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

From:

conuly

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.

None of this is relevant to the conversation, y'know.

Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

That's a different issue, one you'll note I didn't address. Certainly, if a person doesn't want to read the book for a legitimate reason (not "it's too hard" or "it's too long") then they should be allowed to read something else.

From:

meryls-corner.livejournal.com

I was trying to show the possible problems of not allowing parents to censor what their children read. And your post made me realize that I didn't answer all the questions.
Maybe children should have the right to read without censorship, and that does play a part in getting children to trust their own judgement. But how would the government be able to enforce this right? I'm not saying book burning is right. I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

From:

conuly

But how would the government be able to enforce this right?

They could start by not bowing to the demands of self-righteous parents every time said parents object to a book's existance. I'm not saying "go into every home and make sure the parents don't censor their children's reading", I'm saying "don't let the parents decide the curriculum and stock the libraries".

I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

And...? Lots of things cause problems. Do you think we should take the easy way out, always?

From:

meryls-corner.livejournal.com

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?
No I don't think we should take the easy way out. I was getting images of the going into homes scene you described.

From:

conuly

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?

Tell them that it's not up to them, and that it's important to protect the first amendment rights of others. We're not talking about 9 year olds here, we're discussing teenagers, at 13, 14, 15 years old. That's more than old enough to choose their own reading material.

From:

meryls-corner.livejournal.com

All right. I wish someone could talk sense like that to the people I'm living with now, but I doubt it would work. You're right. By that age they should decide.