Don’t let censorship limit your freedom to read

How many people remember reading “The Giver,” “James and the Giant Peach,”  or “Where’s Waldo?” when they were kids? How about when you got a little older and started reading some classics like “The Great Gatsby,” “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” and “Animal Farm?”

These books all have something in common: they were all located on  the top banned books of the past 20 years (yes, even “Where’s Waldo?”).

The list of reasons to ban books from schools and libraries include language, sexual scenes, and racism. All of these could be valid reasons, if they weren’t so annoying.

Let us first focus on “Where’s Waldo?,” by Martin Handford. The first “Waldo” was banned because of a single woman on a beach who was definitely missing her top. It was later changed in the printing that came out in 1997, with her cleavage safely covered to protect innocent eyes. Let’s be honest though, there is so much going on in the pages of a “Where’s Waldo?” book that this isn’t going to immediately jump out to six year olds. I’m fairly positive that they’re trying much harder to find Waldo than a nipple.

Another highly contested book and one of my personal favorites is the novel “To Kill A Mockingbird,” by Harper Lee, which is heavily challenged because it is has “racist themes.” In actuality the book is completely against racism. Atticus Finch, the father of the two main characters, Scout and Jem, is a lawyer defending an African American, Tom, in a rape trial where he proves that Tom is innocent. Yet Tom is still convicted, which leads the reader to question, with Atticus, why some people would let prejudices get in the way of reason. Still, for some reason many parents do not want the book taught to their students.

Another book that I enjoy managed to make number one on the list of top 100 banned books of the decade 2000-2010. The “Harry Potter” series, by J.K. Rowling, has been a heated battle in the literary world since the first book was published. There are some who believe that “Harry Potter” promotes the occult and will encourage children to try to practice witchcraft. In reality, this series is a beautifully written fantasy that illustrates themes of good vs. evil, (spoiler alert, good wins) friendship, dealing with death, prejudice, and even growing pains. Those who have actually read the books are aware of this.

The only book that has beat Harry Potter in the number of years that it has spent on the top of the banned books list is the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three,” by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, which ended up as the number one banned book in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2010.

This adorable book is a story about two male penguins in the New York’s Zoo who would rather spend time with each other than the females. When the zookeeper notices that the penguins are sad that they can’t lay an egg, he takes an extra egg and gives it to the two male penguins to hatch. Thus Tango was born. The book is actually true, and anyone can go to New York Central Park Zoo and see Tango and her adopted dads.

Apparently some people think that Tango’s two daddies would be immoral for children. After all, it’s such a shame to introduce a child to accepting all people (or even penguins) regardless of their sexual orientation.

Banned Book week starts Saturday and continues until Oct. 1. According to the American Library Association, the point of this week is to “highlight the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States.”

I don’t want to be told what to read. If I want to go to my local library, I should be able to pick up whatever book I want. It is not up to a board to decide what we can or cannot read. It is up to the individual.

If a person is offended by foul language, blunt sexual scenes, racial slurs, or the childlike dream of being able to play quidditch, then perhaps they should do a bit of research on the book that they would like to read. It is one person’s right not to read a book, but certainly not to take away others’ rights to read that book.