Obstacles should not be raised against anyone in search of knowledge. Banning books robs people of great literature that can teach us morals, lessons and techniques on how to handle various situations life tosses to us, usually on the basis that thw words written are not politically correct. Getting a true meaning of our cultural stories can be a real challange. While some may believe that messages are best left to Western Union and not books, almost all of us turn to children's stories with the expectation that morals and lessons will be forth-coming, even in those cases where tehy are not spelled out in text (Tatar, XV).

Classics are being banned because of racial slurs and offensive language and slang. Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was banned recently in Pennsylvania because the word "nigger" appeared 36 times in the first 39 pages. Teachers want to protect the self-esteem of young African-American students. But even though it is a work of fiction, the time the story is set holds true. In the time the book was set, the word "nigger" was a socially acceptable form used in shorter terms for "African-American." Shortly after the novel was published, a committee of the public library of Concord, Massachusetts called Huckleberry Finn "trash" and banned it from the shelves in the belief that it corrupted youth and the English language itself. The book continues to be widely banned from schools today, and the American Library Association ranked it as number five on their list of the 100 most challenged books between 1990 and 1999 (Twain, 306-7).

To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee and Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck were also popular banned books with good morals, but with racial slang, rape and even a mentally handicapped man. If it is so wrong to read about Atticus Finch defending a black man wrongly accused of rape, then people should think about banning Court TV and news channels on television as well, since real life current events are filled with things like this. What happens in the courthouse in Harper Lee's book is not the main plot of the book. It was narrated through the eyes of Scout, a little girl growing up at the pique of American apartheid. It is history in the form of a story which can be used as a learning tool. John Steinbeck's book is a little different. He used adult characters who kill and get killed, but only aside from the plot. Some thought this book was demeaning to women because of Curly's wife, who was not even given a name in the story and was killed (accidentally) when all she wanted was attention (Steinbeck, 188). People look at this instead of the lessons to be learned. Obstacles in anyone's life play important roles in the lives of these characters, and the books show how these obstacles are met and overcome in positive ways.

Grimm's Fairy Tales, though not widely banned, play an important role in society today. The ideas in these stories have been tossed around, concidered, and changed so much throughout the years that the morals, however good they are today, are not the same as they use to be. In "Cinderella," Disney showed the evil stepmother and her horrible daughters looking dismayed and awed with vicious looks in their eyes as the handsome Prince strolled away with his new bride, showing that they did not get what they wanted, but not showing that they got what they deserved, like in Grimm's tale, where the Stepmother and her daughters get their eyes pecked out by birds. It is easy to see why this was changed to better suit a very young children, which is Disney's main audience, but the original stories were not meant for children at all (Brothers Grimm, 86-92).

Disney has done an extraordinary job of twisting fairy tales around for children's viewing enjoyment. The original Little Mermaid is tortured throughout her entire human existence and eventually dies when the Prince falls in love with someone else, the Hunchback of Notre Dame is suppose to have hung himself after losing the heart of the gypsy girl, and Sleeping Beauty's stepmother dies in the barrel of snakes, set up for the young heroine herself.

Screening what books reach the hands of children is fine, but banning it from the hands of everyone is just wrong. Books are suppose to make us think from another person's point of view, tell history and let us escape and use our imaginations. We do not have to agree with it, but why ban books just because it is not enjoyed? Why not just not buy them or not read them? It could be a good thing that people act so harshly to certain books. Otherwise, who would be so intrigued to read them? As Benjamin Disraeli said, "Reaction is the law of life."

We fear what we are most reluctant to understand. It is fear that personal expression will do harm to individuals in its audience, or to society as a whole. Thus so-called obscene material is attacked because of fear that it will corrupt personal morality or perhaps even lead to deviant political, sexual, or simply chaotic acts.

1984, by George Orwell and Ferenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury each portray the possibility of what future America would be like as a totalitarian government. These notions highly threaten society today in fear that people will soon conspire and revolt against the government, breaking loose chaos upon the nation. Ironically enough, Ferenheit 451 was about burning and banning all books without even knowing why. It is reading books, not owning them that is illegal in that world. It is okay not to read a book. Why should it not be okay that people who want to read, can? Ray Bradbury attacked book censorship in the afterward of Fahrenheit 451 by saying that there is more than one way to burn a book, and that the world is full of minority groups running around with lit matches in the form of censors and bans. He asks people to stop trying to censor his work because it steals from the integrity of it (Bradbury, 180).

The Harry Potter series is one of the most popular set of books that have been banned recently due to a fear that children will turn their minds to witchcraft. The very sight of something contradicting religion (mainly Christian and Catholic) and into the fire it goes. There is another collection of books that has such potential when held to the same standards as J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter. It is called The Bible. Similar to the Harry Potter series, there are references in it to wizardry (Samuel, 1:28). Since the Bible is so ubiquitous, it is too bad that a little witchcraft and a few naughty words are not the worst of it. Unfortunately, it contains many stories of sexual abuse and deviance. Unlike other books that were banned for perversion, in the Bible, the perverts and abusers are often the people who are suppose to be the heroes.

The Marquis de Sade is possibly the most hated frenchman of the 1800s soley because of his written works. "Sade's life and ideas were suppressed through the nineteenth century, and have been conscienctiously distorted throughout the twentieth." His preference for violent, consensual sexual rituals made him a notorious object of popular hatred. It is very understandable that he is widely banned. He held up a mirror to show the world true, hidden human nature and people were afraid to look into their own reflections and those who did, did not like what they saw. Throughout the course of his writing "career," he was tossed from prison to prison and eventually, after ridiculing Napoleon and the Empress Josephine of France, he was committed without trial to Charenton asylum, where he lived out the rest of his life (Davenport-Hines, 167-71). Imprisonment did not stop him from publishing his work, however. It seemed nothing could silence him. He had published his last novel Justine during his last years in the asylum. After Napoleon saw a copy roaming the streets of France, he ordered that every copy be seized and burned. People were scared that what he wrote could be true about anyone The sex, the violence, the impending lust was so thick within the pages of his books. After Sade died, the demand for his books rised and copies of his books were published at the very place that discouraged his writing. It was Sade's triumph to turn this ruin into statements about the human condition. People are afraid of what challanges what they think is socially right. Censorship reflects a society\x{2019}s lack of confidence in itself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Amar, 21)". The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the clutches of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

It is easy to take something as simple as freedom for granted when we have plenty of it. If our freedoms were ever taken from us, the very least of our worries would be the content of books we do not even have to read. We would not be allowed to have any books, not even bibles. In Fahrenheit 451, while the novel is most often classified as a work of science fiction, it is first and foremost a social criticism that warns against the danger of suppressing thought through censorship. Like 1984, it uses a totalitarian dystopia to attemp to create harmony at the price of individual rights, including our first right.

Although it is not a good idea to ban books, there are some justified reasons to do it. It is in parents' best interest to protect their children from anything they can while they are still young and impressionable. Take Harry Potter for instance. Parents were terrified that this series of popular childrens' books would lead children to practicing witchcraft and the occult. "...they worried that Rowling's depiction of sorcery looks harmless and attractive to Harry Potter's child-fans - and might draw them into the practice of the occult and ultimately lead them away from Christianity (Nolan, 1)." Protecting children for moral reasons is an acceptable reason to screen what children with moral parents read.

Another good reason to cencor, but not ban books is to sheild readers of offensive or vulgar material. The Marquis de Sade is a perfect argument to this refute. His published works, such as 120 Days of Sodom and Philosophy in the Bedroom use sex and vulgarity in great detail. People of all ages agree on the ban of Sade due to the extreme violence of taboo sexual acts such as beastiality, sodomy, torture and rape. Who would ever want to read a passage such as " His first passion is for beastiality, his second is to sew the girl into untanned donkey's skin, her head potruding; he feeds and cares for her until the animal skin shrinks and crushes her to death (Sade, 491)."? The Marquis de Sade is probably the easiest author to ban because so few concider his work socially acceptable.

In summary, it must be said that if you only face forward, you can miss seeing something. It is a virtue to devote oneself to something, firmly believing in one's own ideals. But that does not mean it is alright to belittle the ideals and feelings of others. It is okay to keep one's own self or one's children from viewing certain material that may be explicit, but books should not be banned just because a few people have a grudge against the content. Like comic book creator Jhonen Vasquez said, "Anypile of stunted growth unaware that entertainment is just that and nothing more, deserves to doom themselves to some dank cell, somewhere, for having been so stupid!! Movies, books, T.V., Music- they're all just entertainment, not guidebooks for damning yourself (Vasquez, 10)!" People will still try to ban books in an attempt to mask their fears and stop those who choose to rise above the norm, but as always, the books will arise to victory.