As someone who entered his teens in the 1960s, I am a member of a Maltese generation that grew up being deeply anti-censorship. One does not easily forgive and forget when one's first viewings of James Bond films were ruined by the censor's pincer claw!

However, a meeting in the European Parliament last week convinced me that the right to free expression needs to be revisited in the light of developments in the media of communication and their industries.

Anyone anticipating a wholesale retraction of my anti-censorship instincts, in the name of being older and wiser, should be warned, however. I still chuckle, perhaps irresponsibly, when remembering how I found myself censored - and sternly censured - as a University student.

By that time it was the 1970s and I presided over a student committee whose aim was to press for student grants. I had the idea of commissioning a poster from a fellow student, Norbert Attard (already then a talented artist). It showed, in suggestive outline, a nude female torso. Beneath it, the words: Now that we have your attention, we need grants.

Several women students failed to be amused. I was accused both of offensive, misogynist behaviour and of misusing student funds (arguments I understand better now than I did then). The best defence - "I did it for the money" - seemed unpromising.

After a sleepless night, I decided to take down all the posters and refund the money spent from my own pocket. I had gone a (free) speech too far.

I hope this anecdote establishes that I am disposed to have considerable sympathy for anyone whose bright, or even not-so-bright, ideas are met with lack of support or even a ban. I understand how important each such episode is to the person at the receiving end of censure.

With all that, however, I do not think that the most fundamental questions are raised by the two Maltese cases that recently raised the issue, or at least the accusation, of censorship.

In the case of the play Stitching, currently being heard by the courts, the most important issue, as pointed out by several people already, is whether we have the appropriate law. In other words, should a board of censors be obliged to intervene before a theatrical performance is staged or should the law resemble that of printed opinion, where people are free to publish their opinion but can be taken to court subsequently for infringing the laws of libel or hate speech, etc.

In the case of Raphael Vella's installation, which the Council for Culture and the Arts refused to exhibit under its name fearing a lawsuit and a consequent drain on finances and time, the issue is not even one of censorship. The council refused to be associated with the installation but Dr Vella is free to have it exhibited elsewhere.

I do not want to belittle these cases. They have their importance in setting precedent, both for free speech and for its curtailment. However, they are both cases that can be discussed within our established political, educational and cultural framework.

Just the other week, I attended a meeting of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. It was addressed by Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister of Sweden, currently holding the EU Presidency.

One of the questions put to him concerned internet and free speech: Should there be any kind of filtering of the internet? Did this not curtail free speech? On the other hand doing away with filtering would, of course, make things a lot easier for criminal activity like paedophilia and the fomentation of hatred towards specific groups.

Mr Bildt has a career behind him of championing liberty, distinguished even in a country that is a champion of social liberalism. However, on this matter, he sounded to me as though he could see the force of both sides of the question.

Mr Bildt concluded the subject needs a European discussion since any move by a single European state would affect the others. For once, I do not think the plea for further discussion is being evasive.

The right to free expression, as we know it, was understood to be exercised in social and political contexts that a reasonable person could be held to be able to judge for him or herself. There were also practical limits to how much public speech could be used for purposes other than persuasion. In the case of pornography, the products themselves needed to be publicised, in order to be sold, which provided some kind of control over the acceptable boundaries.

All this has changed with the internet. The boundaries between private and public are fuzzy while the purposes of "free speech" and communication have also broadened considerably.

The issues needed rethinking in order to see how liberty can be maximised without putting innocent lives in reckless danger. It also seems evident that the solution would need to be, at the very least, on a European scale.

I still have my grants poster. I now look at it as a relic from the age of innocence.

Dr Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European ParliamentJohn Attard Montaldo