However, it isn't just dictators and their minions who behave in this way. Those moralist groups, which I briefly talked about in my censorship rant, also behave in such a manner that is a blatent disregard for freedom. However, the type of freedom that they dislike (or hate if you will) isn't freedom of assembly or freedom of religion. It is mainly freedom of speech, which I regard as most the most vital one of them all. In fact, if it wasn't for freedom of speech, this site would be pulled down and I would most likely be punished for putting it up in the first place. That is why I dislike these moralist groups. Their policy of censorship is really in contempt of freedom of speech.
You'd be surprised that the main motto for moralist groups in general isn't "Let's ban this and that" or "For the children" nor "We must bring purity in our society". No. Their main motto is "Fight fire with fire". To beat your enemy, you must act like your enemy. So what do you do? Just like your foes, who publish "obscene" and "gratuatious" material, why not print some "pure" material instead? It's a wonderful idea is it not? But it can backfire. And thanks to me, it has.
I remember last week (about the last week of March 2002) my 10 year old brother got a magazine of school that was for parents. Since I was bored and had nothing to do, I decided to flick through it. It was called Melbourne's Child, which to me sounds like a weird name. But the name of the magazine is not going to be debated here. I looked through it. Nothing really interesting at first: letters to the editor, ad's for student enrollment, several articles about an art's festival, ideal travel locations, a calander and important dates. Not something that I'd find interesing. However, my patience was about to be rewarded. The last page had movie reviews. I read them and I said "What the hell? Why on earth would someone write that about CHILDREN'S movies? This must have been written by a member from one of those wacky moralist groups!" And you'll soon know why.
I could scan the reviews, but my scanner has been playing up for months (it's an Olympic; what did you expect?) But I might as well just tell you about the important things, rather than let you read the whole thing. Now, there were two reviews there. The first one was about Jungle Book 2. There wasn't much crap in here, except for a part in the review that had the sub-heading of "Language". Remember that the following passage is completely unedited. Here it is:
"No bad language, but a surprising number of sexist put-downs of Shanti in which she is refered to as "that girl!"
Now, how in all of hell can that be sexist? Can ..............
