It was banned because some asshole thought that because the giver uses "release" as a euphemism for death and suicide that younger children shouldn't read it. Apparently it also depicts communism, which I can also see, but instead of looking at it as "promoting death, suicide, and communism to younger ages", look at is as: The horrible effects of communism and the the giver shows why communism isn't okay, and that suicide and death shouldn't be taken lightly.
I'm a senior in high school and I believe book banning should NOT be allowed. I believe it should be up to the reader as to whether or not something is inappropriate, and if they believe it is, then they don't have to read it. It shouldnt be up to one person to ban a book despite its content. Banning goes against and negates two of the five freedoms set forth by the First Amendment, which are: Freedom of speech and of the press.
-mariah meader
age 18
ipswich MA.
I'm a senior in high school and I believe book banning should NOT be allowed. I believe it should be up to the reader as to whether or not something is inappropriate, and if they believe it is, then they don't have to read it. It shouldnt be up to one person to ban a book despite its content. Banning goes against and negates two of the five freedoms set forth by the First Amendment, which are: Freedom of speech and of the press.
-mariah meader
age 18
ipswich MA.
