I don't think anybody here has been suggestingbthta violence and threats by people protesting against this production were right.

And I don't think anybody has suggested that people objecting to the production did not have the right to protest peacefully.

That leaves two questions - "Were the people in charge of the production correct in their decision to put it on in the form they did put it on?" and "Was it wrong to cancel it in the circumstances?" Clearly the important principle of freedom of expression is involved.

However, there are, it is generally agreed, circumstances where the right of freedom of expression can come into conflict with other rights. One is the case exemplified by the case of crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre, where there is no fire. Another is the kind of example given by Wolfgang in his last post.

I just do not know enough about the precise circumstances of this episode to have any firm view as to whether it was one which fell into an analogous category with those cases.