Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Should schools be able to ban books?
Position2 of 3
Yes, schools should be able to ban books
Argument2 of 2

Children should not read about mature content

Children should not be exposed to topics such as substance abuse, violence, and sex at a young age.

The argument

Banning books save children from being exposed to graphic content that they may not mature enough for. The content could be traumatizing and disturbing to their mental health. Books can also promote violence and substance use. If a character in a novel is acting violent, readers observe and learn that behavior. For example, the novel "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger has been credited for provoking multiple attempted assassinations and assassinations, such as John Lennon and Ronald Reagen.

Premises

[P1]Banning certain books shields children from graphic content they may be too young for, which could be traumatizing or damaging to their mental health. [P2] Books can also model violence or substance use for impressionable readers—proponents point to The Catcher in the Rye, which has been linked in popular accounts to assassination attempts—so some titles warrant removal. [C] Schools should be able to ban books because children should not read about mature content.

Counter-arguments

Children should have the option to read mature content so they are not sheltered from lifelike situations. Reading about these situations is a safe way to learn about them but to not be put into harm's way. Mature content in literature can also better equip children to handle difficult situations that they read about. They are prepared and have learned from the successes and mistakes of the characters.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P4] Sheltering children from the realities of life is not helpful.