#3. On Censorship in Literature [edited]

Literature that raises eyebrows, that causes controversies, especially in the twenty-first century, should be censored or withheld. A lot of people will probably disagree with my opinion, but I have my reasoning.
I feel that in our world, right now, there's so much more freedom of expression because of social networking. Facebook allows employers and teachers to interact with employees and students at a highly personal level. There is also less privacy. And so many times the line blurs and people cross it without even realizing it. I don't think that's a good thing.
I don't consider S-5 controversial literature. Most people in our time and age don't. What I'm saying is literature considered CONTROVERSIAL IN OUR DAY AND AGE should be censored. I guess subject matter would be the main issue.
For controversial literature to not be censored, to not be withheld, seems dangerous to me. Songs these days are already poorly censored. I remember running into a 7-year-old singing London Bridge back when Fergie was huge in the music biz. Although songs like Fergie's London Bridge is not intended for little children, kiddies come into contact with it because it's a small world. Kiddies singing explicit song lyrics is frowned upon.
So why shouldn't controversial literature be banned/censored? If it's for the greater human good, then that's the way things should be. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows one to express his own thoughts and feelings as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights. If a piece of literature offends certain groups of people, why should it not be censored?
I might be old-fashioned in some aspects, but there's just some things that you shouldn't say out loud. There's a reason why we have that little voice inside our heads to tell us when to stop talking. I'm just saying.