Should A Hated Word Be Banned?

Upfront’s article, “Should a Hated Word Be Banned?” is about a proposal in Israel’s Parliament to make it illegal to say the word ‘Nazi’ in casual conversation. Supporters of this law want it to be passed because they consider it disturbing and disrespectful to the history involved with this word. Many teens use it regularly when describing someone strict or hash. Some people think it shouldn't be passed because it infringes on the right to free speech.in my opinion, it shouldn't be passed because everyone should always have a right to say anything no matter who it might offend.

This law should not be passed. For one thing, denying the right of the people to say a word is only one step away from denying the peoples’ right to talk openly about controversial ideas. People need to have the right to express all their ideas or opinions openly and publicly. If this right is taken away the government gains more control over the people. If the government makes it against the law to speak out peacefully against the government, they can then get away with doing things people should be speaking out against or simply expressing their opinions on. This is why free speech is necessary and why and why any infringement upon this right is extremely dangerous.

On the other hand, using the word ‘Nazi’ as it is used today in regular conversation can be considered excessive and inappropriate. The Holocaust was undisputedly a horrific event in our history. Using words relating to it so casually is offensive to some people. However, the safety of our rights is more important than whether or not someone is made uncomfortable by the use of a certain word. Amir Fuchs said, “You measure the freedom of speech in a democratic country in the freedom to say these disturbing and annoying things, not in what is nice and pleasant to hear.

In conclusion, this law should not be passed just because people are offended by a certain word. it is an infringement on the peoples’ right to speak freely. Without the right to protest against the government, the people have hardly any power without taking illegal action. In the past, death and struggle have followed countries with the right to free speech. 

Book Banning Argument Essay

Dear Ms. Berner,

Sixth graders should be allowed to read whatever they want because books about real issues help kids deal with problems in their lives. This is an important topic because without these books students could feel alone or lost, and try to solve their problems in ways that are harmful to themselves or others.  Middle school students in tough situations need these Y.A. books to guide them through. Some people believe these books hurt kids, but I believe that it should be up to the child and their family to decide whether or not the book is appropriate.

Y.A. books help kids in tough situations deal with them in the best way possible. In his anti-book banning article, ‘Why The Best Kids Books Are Written In Blood,’ Sherman Alexi writes “I read books about monsters and monstrous things, often written with monstrous language because they taught me how to battle the real monsters in my life.” A book can be something for a kid to look up to when they don’t have anyone else to look up to in their lives.  Another writer who agrees with this is Ellen Hopkins, who described one of her book readings after which a girl who had struggled with addiction approached Hopkins and told her how much her books helped her. “She saw herself in those pages and suddenly knew she didn’t want to be there. That book turned her around. Today she’s been sober about two years…” This shows how these dark, intense books help kids deal with the challenges in their lives.

Some people believe these intense and descriptive YA books traumatize kids.  One of these people is Megan Cox Gurdon.  In her article, “Darkness Too Visible,” she says “…Books focusing on pathologies help normalize them and, in the case of self harm, may even spread their plausibility and likelihood to young people who might otherwise never have imagined such extreme measures.”  These books do introduce some kids to tough subjects, but it is necessary for kids to understand these subjects so that they can defend against them. Maureen Johnson for the Guardian says, “If subjects like these are in YA books, it's to show that they are real, they have happened to others, and they can be survived. For teenagers, there is sometimes no message more critical than: you are not alone. This has happened before. The feeling that you are feeling, the thing you are going through – it is a known thing.” Kids need to be told that they are not the only person in the world with the problem they are facing. Sometimes Y.A. books are the only things that can deliver this message.

Another problem some people have with YA books is that they find them offensive.  Diana Verm and her father Alton Verm, of Montgomery County, Texas, were offended by the content of Fahrenheit 451.  She didn’t want to read a book with “cussing” and bible burning.  In my opinion, while these books can be offensive and difficult, it should not be one person or small group of people that decides whether or not everyone is allowed to read a book. Bill Moyers said, “Some of the most inspiring and mind-opening words ever written are threatened with removal because they offended a self-deputized vigilante who wants to deny an entire community’s curiosity and passion to learn.” This quote supports my claim that sixth graders should be allowed to read whatever they and their parents choose and that it should not be one person’s decision that decides it for everyone.

Books should not be banned from our school library because kids and their parents should be able to decide what they are mature enough to read.  Y.A., books can help kids avoid dangerous situations and can even save lives. Everyone should have the choice to not read something if they don’t want to, but we shouldn’t allow our decisions about what we read to be made for us.

Reading Response- Upfront E-waste

          Upfront’s article, “Where Your Cellphone Goes to Die,” by Leyla Arcarglu, is about what happens to our electronics when we recycle them, or don’t. Young children and women in poor countries melt down our computers, cell phones, and TVs to extract small amounts of valuable metals. They breathe toxic fumes and deal with dangerous substances with their bare hands. These people should not be allowed to continue this work, at least in the form in which it currently exists. Electronics manufacturers need to step up to make changes to improve these workers’ lives.

         This work puts human health and even lives at risk. The author writes, “In India, young boys smash computer batteries with mallets to recover cadmium, covering their hands and feet with toxic flecks as they work.” The author also writes, “The World Health Organization reports that even a low level of lead, cadmium, and mercury – all of which can be found in old phones – can cause irreversible neurological damage and threaten the development of a child.” Yes, this work does help the environment – if we don’t recycle, chemicals leach from landfills and hurt soil and rivers through runoff, and we have to mine more of them in destructive ways - but there are better options than this for how to recycle our e-waste.

         Some solutions to this problem are for Congress to pass the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act and for electronics manufacturers to make disassembly safer. The article describes the goal of the RERA as, “The aim is to stop dumping e-waste on the world’s poorest nations and thus to provide an incentive for safer waste management in the U.S.” If this law was passed, then children and women in poor countries wouldn’t be exposed to dangerous materials anymore. Another solution mentioned in the text is “changes in the way manufacturers glue, screw, and solder components together would make it easier to dismantle discarded phones and thus reduce the risks posed by crude recycling technologies, like those employed by children in Ghana.”

         While these working conditions are terrible, the people working on electronic recycling in poor countries rely on these jobs to support themselves and their families. If these jobs were taken away, these boys would lose their jobs and might have no other work. Companies can still improve the conditions for these workers while keeping these jobs in place by making it easier to disassemble electronics. That way, they wouldn’t have to smash and burn them, thereby exposing themselves to dangerous materials. Electronic manufactures need to step up and take responsibility for the damaging ways their products are being recycled.

         When we recycle our out-of-date electronic products, we put them in a box and feel like we’re doing something good for the environment. But most people don’t fully understand what “recycling” is doing to workers in poor countries. We are not being informed about how dangerous these jobs are, and how these workers are being put at risk just so that we can buy the latest iPhone and not worry about the environmental damage from throwing away our old electronics. These issues are hidden from us so we don’t have to think about them – the manufactures want us to continue spending money on their new products. It’s time for the public to be informed about the risks and issues around recycling these products so that we can improve working conditions in the poor countries that are taking our e-waste. There’s no quick and easy solution – if we pass laws that prevent us from sending them, the workers will lose their livelihoods and we’ll likely just send the dangerous work somewhere else. Something that we can do is hold on to our old electronics for longer and not buy the latest gadget the second it comes out. Also, we need to demand that manufacturers make changes to their products that reduce the risks of recycling.