Editorial

In the last couple of weeks two completely different events in two different countries had one thing in common: The debate about censorship. In Malta, Mario Philip Azzopardi produced, in the Manoel Theatre, the play Sulari fuq Strada Stretta. It had been scheduled for showing in 1977 but the censors had a different disposition. He had to wait quite a while for its production.

In Rome, the Pope was invited to speak in the University La Sapienza. A small group of professors wrote to the university authorities asking them to withdraw the invitation. They believed that the Pope should not be heard because his ideas did not match theirs. When the university authorities went ahead with the invitation, a group of students occupied the office of the rector. The rest is history.

These two incidents refer to different facets of the reality of censorship. The formal aspect, that is the state's intervention through some mechanism or other before the holding of an event, is becoming less stringent. In many cases it is disappearing. The production of Sulari is an example of this. On the other hand, the La Sapienza incident shows that the same is not necessarily true of informal means of censorship.

The right to freedom of expression - whether artistic, pseudo-artistic, political, religious, etc. - is not absolute; though one must hasten to add that the presumption should always be in favour of free speech. Like every other right, it has to be exercised within parameters established by law. One's rights have to be exercised without infringing the rights of others or the rights of society.

As time goes by, European jurisprudence, which is also binding on Malta, makes the interpretation of the laws more liberal. Laws governing libel and obscenity or pornography have been part of the legal systems for ages. Their interpretation moves with the times. What was considered obscene or pornographic years ago is not considered so today.

The same applies to libel.

Images, ideas or words that were once considered to be unacceptable are considered acceptable today, even if they shock some or a lot of people. On the other hand, images, words and ideas that once were considered acceptable are today not acceptable at all. For example, hate language is being given a wider definition. It has not only become unacceptable but also illegal. The same can be said of stereotyping. Adverts have been withdrawn because they portrayed gender stereotyping in good light. This has also happened in Malta.

Different mechanisms are used by society to see that one's rights do not infringe on those of others. In the case of drama in Malta, this is done by prior censorship through state-appointed committees. In the case of TV programmes - which are available to an enormously larger number - a system of self-regulation is used. The broadcaster takes responsibility and then, if need be, he has to answer to the regulator.

Perhaps it is time to consider that, in those areas where there is censorship in the strict sense of the word, one moves away from state-imposed mechanisms toward systems of self-regulation and co-regulation. As in the case of broadcasting, the regulator or the courts can be the second tier for the better establishment of the balance between different rights and duties in society.

Informal censorship is a more complex reality as it has many fathers and several re-incarnations. Today this kind of censorship is, in many countries, more dangerous than formal censorship. Strong groups and organisations that abuse their position in society, weak individuals, fear and insecurity in the face of the new and unknown, ignorance, monopolies and lack of a really free and pluralistic media system are among its fathers. A strong and diverse civil society, education, a spirit of freedom and daring individuals are its enemies.

To twist around a well-known phrase: The people get the level of censorship they deserve.