The X files of censorship
Vicki Peci
Censorship and Book Banning
An Informative Essay The X Files
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire1
Democracy is founded on the principles of autonomy of the individual and faith in the competency and fundamental rational nature of all human beings. Using these principles as the major premises of my argument, I will attempt to demonstrate that censorship and book banning are permissible because they violate the freedoms necessary for preserving democracy and the liberty that accompanies that democracy. Censorship violates humanity's natural autonomy in that it denies an individual an uninfluenced choice in formulating his or her beliefs. Even if the most intelligent human beings are very sure in respect to the truth of an idea, it is wrong for certain individuals to deny other individuals the opportunity to come to a decision themselves. Censorship is wrong because it disregards humanity's basic rational nature and its ability to critically evaluate complex ideas. In effect, censorship is unacceptable because it refuses to recognize another human being's intelligence and free will.
In addition, human beings do not have the right to censure a person because the individual holds an opinion differing from that of the majority. It is absolutely ridiculous and illogical for people to claim that an idea should be censored because it is "offensive" to a culture in the way that it challenges cultural norms. For example, books such as Betty Friedman's The Feminine Mystique and Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin ignited cultural revolutions by making people aware of unjust cultural practices in society. These books presented ideas that were inflammatory and offensive to many people, yet the majority will now agree that these ideas have been some of the
Censorship and Book Banning
An Informative Essay The X Files
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire1
Democracy is founded on the principles of autonomy of the individual and faith in the competency and fundamental rational nature of all human beings. Using these principles as the major premises of my argument, I will attempt to demonstrate that censorship and book banning are permissible because they violate the freedoms necessary for preserving democracy and the liberty that accompanies that democracy. Censorship violates humanity's natural autonomy in that it denies an individual an uninfluenced choice in formulating his or her beliefs. Even if the most intelligent human beings are very sure in respect to the truth of an idea, it is wrong for certain individuals to deny other individuals the opportunity to come to a decision themselves. Censorship is wrong because it disregards humanity's basic rational nature and its ability to critically evaluate complex ideas. In effect, censorship is unacceptable because it refuses to recognize another human being's intelligence and free will.
In addition, human beings do not have the right to censure a person because the individual holds an opinion differing from that of the majority. It is absolutely ridiculous and illogical for people to claim that an idea should be censored because it is "offensive" to a culture in the way that it challenges cultural norms. For example, books such as Betty Friedman's The Feminine Mystique and Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin ignited cultural revolutions by making people aware of unjust cultural practices in society. These books presented ideas that were inflammatory and offensive to many people, yet the majority will now agree that these ideas have been some of the