The Birmingham Repertory Theatre had to be evacuated yesterday after some Sikhs protesting a play being shown there got violent. The play had scenes of sex abuse and murder taking place in a temple, which angered some of the Sikh community who throught it shouldn't be shown, and so it's now been cancelled.

Now, this raises some important issues in my opinion about what is what extrents we should go to to avoid offending communities. Any artwork, be it plays, books or tv programmes, dealing with a vaguely controversial subject is going to irritate some people. The play had actually already been changed in an attempt to avoid something like this, foillowing consultation with some leading Sikhs, which worries me in the first place. Do we have to accept there are some things we can't represent in art, if just to avoid the threat of violence? Or do we let everything through, even to the extent of racist propaganda designed to incite violence?

Thoughts?

Here's the way I see it: the people who produce the play put a disclaimer in plain view on advertisements and stuff explaining what the content is. Anyone who feels it is offensive does not have to see it. Of course, if it's the heros of the play who are doing the offensive things, that's another matter...

I lean on the side of having controversy and offending people. Because if you stopped saying things just because some people were offended - well, there's bound to be some people who get offended at practically anything. There are people who find Harry Potter offensive. And if they get together and form a pressure group, they can basically shut everybody else up.

I'll allow for people saying completely moronic neanderthalic things, things so completely puerile and atrocious that the speaker rightly deserves to be pelted with pointy objects. But if a mob actually did pelt him with pointy objects, they should be arrested, not appeased.

I do draw the line at hate speech specifically designed to incite violence, though.

Another factor is whether or not someone can avoid the offensive material if they don't want to see it. Nobody's forcing pious Sikhs to watch this play. It should be allowed.

I am offended by people getting offended. I demand that they stop immediately; you can't offend me like that!

Censorship has hit ridiculous highs. I'm not exactly sure why.

Possibly because we live in a sue happy society, where people can file a lawsuit about practicaly anything?

You have to make allowences for them all being from Birmingham.

I don't know if this was the case in the incident caffeine's talking about, but oftentimes, artists of all types will deliberately include, or exaggerate, controversial elements, simply because controversy = publicity = more sales.

Like the artist who put a crucifix in a bottle of pee and photographed it? Or the girl in my art class who...ugh....decided to draw on her own naked body with her own menstrual blood?

Yeah, that stuff is stupid and crass, but I don't think it should be disallowed.

Kea, at least by the description, that fellow student of yours appears to have come up with a really expressive idea. Getting her own menstrual blood doesn't hurt anyone. And it's something that comes out of a woman that feels like an important part of a woman. This woman was using an important yet unneeded part of herself to depict herself. As long as she treated said painting as contaminated with human bodily fluids, it seems like an excellent idea to me.

Which really highlights why censorship of art is a bad idea. What one person thinks is obnoxious and over the top another person may be strongly emotionally moved by.

I am for allowing offensive art (with a wide interpretation of art).

I find reasons for being offended with about half of what i see in tv, movie or read. So if everyone who is offended takes measures against it there is no more art.

Actually, it's hit all time lows, lately. Used to be it was illegal to show a scene on TV with two people in bed unless one of the two had at least one foot on the ground at all times. Lenny Bruce said the f word in a routine and was brought to court.

Sexual censorship has gotten hilarious. Britney Spears can wear little tiny skimpy lingerie that's vaguely see through and looks like it's about to fall off and then pose in explicit positions in music videos aimed at teenagers and pre-adolescence. Nobody says boo. Then Janet Jackson shows her breast and everybody acts like it's mega-scandal of the century.

Just...racial and sectarian censorship have reached highs. And...I think it's terrible that interest groups can bully people into shutting down their productions. They shouldn't, however, be *forced* to see offensive material. I agree with the 'give warnings and disclamers' thing.

But also, one thing...private institutions may be worried about bad publicity, and they have every right to choose not to show something that's offensive to their patronage.

I can see people getting upset over the Janet Jackson boob thing. Espiacally since the line of the song was so racey when her shirt was torn off. The one that gets me is the Terrel Owens/Nicolette Sheridan "scandal". That thing was blown completely out of proportion. Oh no! You can see her naked back from above the waist! Naked backs are perverted! How could the NFL show this? It's not decent!

I can see why people would get mad about the Janet Jackson thing, but I can't see why they would get mad about that, and not what Britney Spears and others do in just about every concert, TV appearance and music video.

It's like...it's okay to be as naked as you want, so long as the three trouble spots are covered by, at the very least, tissue paper.

I think the PC police have gotten WAY out of hand. By limiting subjects, ideas, philosophies...etc, you nueter the culture/language growth.

However...and here is a change in thought...I don't believe that people should be forced to support art/theater/philosophies they find objectionable.

For example: The Crucifix in the jar of urine really is disgusting to me, and upsets my religious philosophies/beliefs. However, it is not right for me to force the "artist" to change. It is his right to create any expression he wants. However, I do not want any of my funds going to support him. That is also my right. However, insiting violence to get my way is NOT a right.

Just my thoughts.

Well I think the play meets the standards of warnings. Like I said, they consulted with leading figures in the Sikh community beforehand, and went so far as to hand out a leaflet published by some Sikh temple to everyone who came to see the play (presumably pointing out how wrong and offensive it all was).

As for whether she was just doing it for the controversy, that seems to be the opinion of the Birmingham Post, who claim her subtle 'talents are wasted as the play disappears into mayhem'. But either way, that's hardly reason to ban it, or we'd start imposing bans on artforms we just thought weren't very good, which is a ridiculous route to go down.