Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Is banning books inherently wrong?
Banning or removing access to books is inherently wrong.
Banning books is instrumentalising ignorance, and ignorance is inherently wrong.
Banning is inherently wrong for everything - because it will not change the demand, it just opens doors wide open for the black market.
Banning anything, except the initiation of violence, is inherently wrong.
Book banning limits free speech.
Book banning is a tool of authoritarian institutions.
It is the responsibility of well informed people to make their own thoughts and judgments based on the information available to them. Having governments deem what books hold worth and what don't is ridding us of our own need for critical thinking.
If it is not wrong for editors to "kill" book projects before release for economical reasons. It is also not wrong for societies to ban released books for economical reasons.
Children should not be allowed to read or view books that are inappropriate for their age.
Banning paper books would help save the environment.
Not all books add value, and there is no value in keeping absolutely everything, so there is benefit in removing and discarding some books.
Some books, like the
, contain objectively dangerous information, and by allowing it into public knowledge we make the world a more dangerous place to live.
Paper books are going to die
Cultural appropriation is wrong
Is Hamlet Mad?