Our ancestor had travelled through the time when servants existed should absolutely devote to their hosts; when upper class had the invalid privilege to oppress people whom they thought were inferior to them; when money gave relish to eclipsing truth, in some cases to surreptitiously easing the truth. As people deplored the partiality of society, censorship, an institution considered to couple with rectitude, erected and mushroomed in almost every country. Prosecution gives equality and righteous to citizens reclined to laws nowadays; however, it still let them down to some extent.
Members in censorship are sometimes remiss in their duties. In other words, investigators may not make efforts to veil the crime and excavate the truth. I still remember a movie whose plots were derived from a true affair. In this movie, a woman called Stella lost her child and then she reported this incident to the police. In order to quickly wind up this case and extricate the massive and complicated search of her child, the police gives an emollient reply that they prevaricate the woman with a boy whom they found wandering around. Before the police gives the child to Stella, they warned the child that if he does not admit that he is her child, he will be sent to prison. Will a mother possible to fail in distinct her child from the crowd? The answer is obvious. If she can hardly see or hear her child, she can actually feel her child. However when Stella denys to accept a unfamiliar child, the child's diction and some other fabrication are used by police to convict Stella of being a psycho. It is a paradox that a system of lionized impartiality would be the culprits itself, yielding to simplifying matters and saving troubles rather than sticking to just.
Censorship is born to eradiate social partisan and censorship itself is a means of advancing human morality. Nevertheless, it is the members who run the censorship should attentive to their duty to really benefit people.