Ironically the pros to banning books are also the cons.
Books are banned in order to limit the availibility of ideas, opinions and information that is deemed dangerous to the general population. The problem is no two people can agree on what is and is not "dangerous". However, banning something only makes people want to see it even more.
Some examples: "Mein Kempt" by Hitler and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain. At first glance you would think these books have nothing in common, but they do. They are books that have either been banned or are in the process of being banned because of their content.
"Mein Kempt" is obvious; it is the writtings of the leader of the Nazi party, a person we have deemed as being evil and whose ideas are seen as tainted. Banning this book was to keep these ideas from infecting the youth growing up after the war. "Huck Finn" is one of a few books many parent groups are trying to get banned from school reading lists because of the words and phrases used by the author and Huck refers to Jim. Because these ideas are seen as degrading and insultings in this day and age, people want the book banned.
However, banning the book does not keep the information out of the hands of "the impressionable minds" because it is human nature to see for one's ownself just how bad something is. In the case of something like "Mein Kempt", books banned because their content is consider dangerous they can only be acquired by dealing with people who agree with the points of the books, people who society deams dangerous. Schoolars are now using Hitler's own writtings to figure out how he was able to do what he did and what drove him to do the things he did. By understanding the enemy, the mindset of a tyrannt, you are able to fight him and his followers much better.
During the Red Scare, information on Communism could only be learned from those who believed and supported Communism, presenting the "impressionable person" with a bias oppinion. The information made available to the general public was written by peopel who did not support it and they choose out of various books and booklets the phrases they could easily twist to serve their purpose. In both bases, however, the information being presented is NOT the truth. They are opinions and without first-hand knowledge or easy access to the banned material, no one could point out the flaws in both side's logic.
The language of "Huck Finn" offends some people and they wish for the book to be banned. They do not want to expose their children to the words that offend them. But why should it offend them? Though it is no longer acceptable, the language of "Huck Finn" was proper to the time period because of where in history our society was. The fact that it was (key word, WAS, past tense, no longer is) the acceptable mindset, the acceptable language, makes Huck's feelings and respect for Jim as a person all the more poinant and important; for through the course of the book he matures from an ignorant boy to a "learned" young man.
Now, some people might disagree with me on that, but that is their right to do so; no two people take from a book the same lessons, if they take any lessons away at all. By banning the book because of the language, you loose an improtant piece that shows the changing mindset of our country before the Civil Rights Movement. The next step is to explain WHY the language is no longer acceptable
The gag to all of this is no two people are the same, each person is unique and each has his or her own way of processing information; which means for every person who does not take the writings of Marx or Hitler to heart, there is someone who will. For every person who understands why the language of Huck Finn is not acceptable, there will be somone who thinks it is. And it is this difference that causes problems and why banning material is seen as necessary by some; to keep those who agree with the "wrong things" safe from those who agree with the "right things" and vice versa.
~~ Abaddon