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.
Book banning limits free speech.
Book banning is a tool of authoritarian institutions.
Banning something can have the unintended consequence of making it more appealing or more widely cherished. If the information is wrong, it is more effective to write and publish a succinct rebuttal to the book showing how it is wrong, and letting readers decide for themselves.
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, mostly for economical reasons, why would it be for societies to ban released books, for economical reasons or any other ?
Children should not be allowed to read or view books that are inappropriate for their age.
Banning paper books would help save the environment.
Life depends on death. Memory depends on forgetting things. For knowledge to grow, like a garden there must be clippings that are discarded. 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 Anarchist Cookbook, contain objectively dangerous information, and by allowing it into public knowledge we make the world a more dangerous place to live.
Is Hamlet Mad?
Cultural appropriation is wrong
Okonkwo, from the book "Things Fall Apart," was not a tragic hero by Aristotle's definition.