I am violently opposed to any kind of censorship. It is the responsibility of each person to decide what they want to see and hear for themselves (and their underage children). If you start drawing lines and censoring certain select forms of expression, you are creating the machinery to censor other subjects that you many value. I don’t buy the argument that any form of art is so morally dangerous that someone else has to protect me from it. It is intolerable when any group or individual infringes the rights of others to enjoy what they like. I happen to find Rap music offensive, so I don’t listen to it. That is my only and final recourse. I don’t have a right to stop others from listening to it just because I don’t like it.

Censorship is not an effort to protect yourself from things you find offensive; that goal is easily accomplished by not using the material you find offensive. Censorship is all about not letting others see certain material. I think this is a critical distinction. We can all understand and even sympathize with someone trying to protect themselves from a pernicious influence. It is much harder to sympathize with someone who is taking it upon themselves to decide what is good for others. The situation is especially hypocritical in that the censor has to look at the material in order to decide it is offensive. While it didn’t do them any harm, they seem to think that the rest of us are too ‘fragile’ to make that decision ourselves. The arrogance of censorship is very offensive to me.

In an update on the case that sparked this thread, the head of a Birmingham show troupe tried to organise simultaneous readings of the play all over the country, but withdrew the idea after a request from the playwright - who has now gone into hiding after repeated death threats.

There were some interesting quotes in the article about freedom of expression being more important than health and safety, and the Home Office declaring that incitement to religious/racial hatred legislation doesn't remove the right to produce offensive art - but I left the paper on the train so I can't share with you any more than that.

The whole thing is a wretched disgrace. They pulled the play because they were concenred about the saftety of the playhouse's staff. Obviously the police were no use in protecting the theatre from the threat of violence, and neither did the Sihk community (who said that their peaceful protest was hijacked by extremists) do much in the way of condemn thge violence. So, given the threat of violence without any help forthcoming, the theatre did the only thing it could.

Oh, and Birmingham's other faiths bundled in condemming the play.

A victory for extremism and violence over reason and freedom of speech all round. Hurrah for modern Britain. I think I'm going to emigrate to France. They wouldn't have put up with this s**t.

Elfy, your comment just shows that one person's art is another person's lost lunch. I might've been able to appreciate that girl's art project more if it had been executed better. Like if she'd drawn something meaningful in blood, instead of just scribbling. Or if the blood had even been more visible in her photos (you could sorta see a vague smear, but nothing more). Or if she hadn't been sitting on the toilet at the time. As it was, she was mostly going for the shock value.