First Assignment
Directions: For today's assignment please read the four quotes below that have all been pulled from articles in the Points of View database on the library's website. Once you read all four quotes, pick the two that you find most interesting, convincing, or crazy (the two you are drawn to for some reason) and write a personal response to each of these two quotes on our blog. There is a question following each quote which will help to get you thinking about the issue at hand. You do not have to answer this question as it appears, it is simply there to help you if you don't know what to say. These response posts to the quotes should be two separate entries in which you discuss what you agree with or what you find wrong with the quote that you chose. Please include the number of the quote (1-4) in your blog entry to make discussion easier on your classmates. Once you have posted your two responses, the next step is to read the ideas of your classmates and post two responses to their ideas. Your original two posts must be completed by Friday 12/14, and two responses to your peers entries must be completed one week from today.
Quotes to choose from:
#1 "Throughout U.S. history, the courts have attempted to define the concept of "obscenity." The most recent definition, proposed in 1971, defines obscenity as work that lacks artistic, scientific, political, or literary value and depicts something that might be considered patently offensive. As this legal definition clearly demonstrates, any attempt to define a subjective concept necessarily relies on other subjective concepts like "artistic value." The idea of obscenity is not a concept that should be defined in legal terms, but rather is something that should be defined personally by every adult consumer."
Question: Is the concept of "artistic value," as it is included in the legal definition of "obscenity," a subjective or objective concept?
Source: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608605&site=pov-live
#2 "The USA Patriot Act of 2001 grants additional powers to government agencies, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, to conduct domestic surveillance. In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that the FBI has investigated the library and Internet usage records of over 30,000 citizens. The Patriot Act grants government agencies the right to decide what media can be considered "dangerous," and therefore to justify surveillance of private consumption. Granting the government the power to determine the value of published media erodes the freedoms granted under the Bill of Rights by denying free choice to consumers. In 2006, the U.S. Senate voted to officially designate the Al-Manar satellite television network, the Al-Nour radio station, and their parent company the Lebanese Media Group as "terrorist entities," for their association with the Lebanese paramilitary organization Hezbollah. Specifically, the media outlets were accused of having acted as a source of recruitment and funding for terrorist groups."
Question: Do you agree with the author's argument that the USA Patriot Act poses a danger to the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights? Why or Why not?
Source: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608605&site=pov-live
#3 "Some critics have noted a change in young adult (YA) and children's literature in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Sexuality, sexual violence, gang violence, homosexuality, profanity, and violent crimes against children are increasingly and graphically represented in many of these books. However, in some cases, concerned parents and community members react without taking the time to closely investigate the books they want banned. A book depicting rape, for example, may be offensive to some, but it may also be a useful starting point to engage students in conversations about rape. It might help young people better understand the world they live in, the human condition, and issues they face in their culture. The finer points of criticism involve judging whether a book has depicted something objectionable tastefully and appropriately. Librarians and parents should learn as much as they can about the book in question, and try to determine if it in fact may have redeeming educational value, rather than just gratuitous sex or violence. Some parents may seek a less-offensive alternative that does equally well in dealing with the same topic. Censorship is not, therefore, about repressing information that children and teenagers should have; instead, it insists that parents have the right to educate their children on controversial topics in ways they deem appropriate, and to monitor the materials their children are exposed to in school or at the library."
Question: Do you believe parents reserve the right to teach their children about controversial issues like drug use? Why or why not?
Source: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608607&site=pov-live
#4 "The key is that parents become active and engaged in what their children are reading. Just as parents monitor the music, video games and movies to which their children are exposed, parents should be aware of what books their children are reading. Censorship of books should not be about silencing voices on important topics, but about steering young people toward the best possible literature on the topics they are interested in. This, after all, is what education and public tax dollars should be doing in the first place. The conversations around this issue will raise important questions: what is "good literature," exactly? Does reading literature really affect people that profoundly? Should one person or group dictate the moral standards of the entire community? Is compromise the best solution? These are difficult questions that should be part of ongoing discussions in communities where censorship has become an issue.
Question: Do you agree with the author's assertion that parents should examine the books they intend to bar their children from reading? What if the parent is extremely opposed to the subject in question?"
Source: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608607&site=pov-live
Please consider your responses carefully before posting them, as your teachers and classmates will be reading and responding to them.
Comments: 22
quote3: i dont exactly agree with this because some parents havent done drugs or dealt with them first hand so therefore how are they giving us the correct information or able to give us advice on what is unknown to them.
Quote 3:I do believe that parents reserve the right to teach the children about the "bad" things in life, But these things are already known in the world why try to hide it or tell them something slightly differnt they are going to find out no matter what , let them figure out for themselves what they want to no about a certain topic. This way if in there lifetime come across these everyday things they will no how to hnadle the situation
I think parents do reserve the right to teach there kids about issues such as drug use. If parents taught there children at an early age the dangers of drugs, they would know not to do them when they are older. Books that are include sexuality, profanity, etc. are also exceptional because they teach kids at an early age what to expect when they are older.
It is true that parents should monitor what thier children see,hear and watch; but only too a certain degree. It is a terrible conviction to send a child into the world without knowledge of the pitfalls and troubles that await them. There is the danger of overexposure which could trouble a young child. The key would be to teach one's child patiently and slowly about controversial issues and let them determine thier own stand on the matter.
I think parents should moniter what books the children are reading so they can see if it's appropriate or not for them. If a parent is extremely opposed then thats fine because its their decision if their child reads the book or not.
Comment modified)
#3
I think parents should be aloud to teach there kids anything they would like to teach them because they are their children not someone else's. If parents dont teach their kids about this because if they don't then they could learn it the wrong way.
they might do the roung thing
truthfully, i beleive it is subjective because they are making ideas without seeking input on both sides.
for instance if there was a courtcase and the judge made his jurisdicton before he heard both sides that would be unjust and wrong.
i think that critics should not place censors on books because in my mind if you ban something from kids it tends to make them want to go towards reading it. also most of the thinks in the new days going into books are facts in real life and if they dont lern about it now they will eventually and then go back and feel as if they led a boring sheltered life.
#4 I agree that your parents should worry about what your doing, reading, and involved in. They love you and are just worried about you and your education. We should let them help us, because they can teach us things that we can use in the future.
