Heric, I agree entirely with your response to my earlier post. The playwright's intent had nothing to do with her right to the freedom of artistic expression. I mentioned her intent merely as a fact, and only in response to something Kendall had said. I had made my position on the broad principle abundantly clear earlier in the thread. I don't agree with your poimt about Wilde, because who is to judge when a line has been crossed? Jerry Lee Lewis, who married his 13-year-old cousin? People in far Eastern countries where marriage at that age has been a commonplace? In a democracy we should obey the prevailing laws of the day, but be free to say what we like about them.

Wolfgang, here's the Shambles argument put another way: the Birmingham Rep theatre decided to produce Behzti, judging it on its artistic merit. Who should have taken the decision, and against what criteria? Are you, for instance, with Kendall who would have nothing produced that might offend a single soul? Or would you allow productions unless they were likely to effend a subtantial, if unrepresentative group of people? Or would you allow even these productions, until or unless they could muster a crowd determined enough to end it by main force?

In any but the last case, which you seem to consider unacceptable, the decision would have to be taken in advance. That is, any proposed work would have to be submitted to a censor. This is Stalinism. Is it really what you want?