It is also believed that self-censorship hinders students’ education. This is not just an abstract, ideological view; repressing material with violent themes or extreme political views can make it difficult to provide accurate information about world history and wars, for instance. Furthermore, as Reichman points out, keeping controversial materials in the open facilitates of balanced discussions about them, and allows for alternative viewpoints to be presented alongside them. Even if extreme views are not allowed on school grounds, students who are easily influenced might come across them in other places — in a contexts where they only hear the extremist perspective, rather than counter-arguments and alternatives. Finally, works which attract self-censorship may turn out to be the very same works that spark a hunger for reading and learning in students who have otherwise been uninterested in school and books. Sometimes, this is precisely because of a work’s controversial elements.
It has also been argued that self-censorship can hinders students’ emotional and (non-academic) intellectual growth. Freedman and Johnson argue that being able to access a wide variety of materials supports students with their efforts to define and redefine themselves. They, and others, also argue that providing students with wide range of material, some of it controversial, supports them in coming to an understanding of the world and of social issues.  This might help them deal with experiences they are currently grappling with alone, much to the benefit of their mental and emotional health. It can also prepare them for issues which they have not yet encountered — and as McClure quips, there are some cases where “imagination [is] probably preferable to a street-corner encounter”.
