The hypocrisy of the court ruling on the play Stitching beggars belief. This is not just a threat to freedom of expression. This is an attack on my fundamental right to choose what or what not to watch.

To clarify, my argument is not to judge whether Stitching is blasphemous or not. I don't know. I didn't read the play. I'm not allowed to watch it. My concern is that someone has made the choice for me - to protect me!

The court's judgment to justify the Classification Board's decision by comparing it to people swearing in public is ludicrous, not just because choice comes into play.

There is an educated process to getting into the theatre; people do not just happen upon a performance and there is rarely any spontaneous walk-in trade. Theatregoers inform themselves, make a choice, and pre-book tickets.

So, by all means, rate a play, slap warnings with bells on them, but do not stop me from making an adult, calculated choice to watch it.

Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon has opened a serious can of worms and it will be next to impossible to control without being labelled hypocritical. In order to justify this ruling, we must expect to see a ban on most films where swearing is rampant because it is, like it or not, a form of colloquial expression.

Many books and magazines too must be removed from our shelves.

Television must be censored too. And if you think that a tale of ritual human sacrifice, murder, rape, slavery, genocide and the massacre of babies constitute shock value, then the Bible needs a fair share of censorship too.

We can also expect our police stations to be crawling with arrests for blasphemy from any village festa, or any public place where there's a football match going on, where swearing is rampant, senseless and imposed on the public. For free.

Please do not protect me from the theatre. Protect me from the censors... and the courts.