When it was released in 1971, Stanley Kubrick's screen adaptation of the Anthony Burgess novel A Clockwork Orange - a tale about a psychopath who got his kicks from rape, extreme violence and classical music - caused so much revulsion that the director himself withdrew it.
The film did not make an official cinema reappearance until 2000, a year after Mr Kubrick's death, when it was met with much more curiosity than distaste. It was treated as a film that the anorak-type of filmgoer felt was a must-see, while those purely on a mainstream diet of Hollywood blockbusters largely ignored it.
The passage of 30 years meant all the initial controversy surrounding the film had evaporated - for on their screens people had seen the lot, from blood spurting out of exposed limb sockets to full blown nudity - and therefore screening it was no longer an issue.
One would think that there is little that can shock any more, though that has not stopped people trying. Anthony Nielson's play, Stitching, falls into that category as it (apparently gruesomely, difficult to say without seeing it) recounts a story of sexual deviance and violence.
When it was screened at the Edinburgh film festival - where audiences expect to watch the weird - some people walked out; in Malta audiences were not given that option, as it was banned by the Classification Board. This not because it was capable of inciting racial hatred or anything of similar sort, but due to the fact that its language and imagery were considered unsuitable.
While art critic Paul Xuereb was right to tell The Times last week that "some people seem too keen on shocking audiences", in the absence of any of the abovementioned aggravating factors this, in 2010, should be a decision for discerning audiences to make.
The script of a play of this nature cannot be equated with an obscene line in this newspaper, or a University newspaper for that matter, which is accessible to the general public. It is being accessed by people who tend to know (and there is certainly a duty to warn them) what they are letting themselves in for.
In a more unfortunate turn of events, the issue went to court and the judge decided, in a most professionally constructed judgment, that the decision of the Classification Board was right. He applied the law - stating that as it is unlawful to utter obscenities on the street, then it is also unlawful to utter them in a theatre.
Though the position enunciated by the judge is not, strictly speaking, incorrect, it is a worryingly narrow interpretation that has failed to take into account a range of factors. Not only the age we are living in, but also the extent to which obscene language is tolerated in so many spheres - from feasts to football grounds where young children - as opposed to educated and mature consenting adults - invariably make up a section of the crowd. A match could end up with no players left on the field if police choose to enforce the law as literally as the learned judge applied it.
The judge justified his decision on the grounds that it would be discriminatory for theatres to have immunity from this law. But, as the production company's lawyer has pointed out, the result of this decision is precisely the opposite. What we have is a rather sad state of affairs that should be rectified, through legislation if necessary, at the earliest opportunity.