What is the difference between censorship and banning

A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. See Challenges by reasons, , and Challenges by reasons, See also: Challenges by initiator, , and Challenges by initiator, This document may be reprinted and distributed for non-commercial and educational purposes only, and not for resale.

Skip to main content. Does ALA ban books? What's the difference between a challenge and a banning? Why are books challenged? As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty: If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

Johnson , said most eloquently: If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

If we are to continue to protect our First Amendment, we would do well to keep in mind these words of Noam Chomsky: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. Who Challenges Books? Although censorship violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, some limitations are constitutionally permissible. The courts have told public officials at all levels that they may take community standards into account when deciding whether materials are obscene or pornographic and thus subject to censor.

They cannot, however, censor publications by generally accepted authors — such as Mark Twain, for example, J. Rowling, R. Stine, Judy Blume, or Robert Cormier — in order to placate a small segment of the community.

The American Library Association publishes the bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, which provides information on censorship, as well as an annual annotated list of books and other materials that have been censored.

This article was originally published in Foerstel, Herbert N. Banned in the U. Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct by otherwise stable people, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what normal children see on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.

Children have been shown TV programs with violent episodes in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively but not actual criminal violence against another person. There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena do not mean that one causes the other.

Japanese TV and movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but Japan has a very low crime rate -- much lower than many societies in which television watching is relatively rare. What the sudies reveal on the issue of fictional violence and real world aggression is -- not much. The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial.

Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression. Whatever influence fictional violence has on behavior, most expert believe its effects are marginal compared to other factors.

Even small children know the difference between fiction and reality, and their attitudes and behavior are shaped more by their life circumstances than by the books they read or the TV they watch.

In , the U. Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior released a page report, "Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence," which concluded, "The effect [of television] is small compared with many other possible causes, such as parental attitudes or knowledge of and experience with the real violence of our society.

Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good.