Modern society, or Western society to be more specific, is becoming more and more liberal, in terms of what is culturally acceptable. Films for general distribution in cinemas, most of which usually find their way on to television, contain scenes of violence and sex which would have been unthinkable just one generation ago. Children who are left to their own devices by careless or absent parents may have access to such films on a regular basis. One hates to imagine the effects of this kind of exposure on young minds totally unprepared for such excesses.

Is the answer to bring back the censor?s scissors? Quite definitely not, say defenders of the freedom of expression. Films, plays and novels are art-forms and as such should not be interfered with ?the artist has every right to express himself according to his inspiration and if people do not like what he produces, they are free to avoid watching or reading it.[And parents of course should face their responsibilities?] Freedom of expression, they will add, is a basic human right and the artist must enjoy his rights just like any other member of the human race.

So now we are on tricky ground as we come back to the old question of where one person?s rights end and those of another person begin. Which is more important ? the right of the artist to express himself or the rights of vulnerable members of society to protection from various harmful influences? And - just as difficult - who has the right to decide what is harmful and what is not? These are very subjective issues and there is certainly no one answer which would satisfy all people.

Religious susceptibilities frequently complicate these matters, as when in England recently a theatre was playing to a full house every night ?the play however did not please everyone. A certain socio-religious group objected to it on the grounds that it did not respect their religion ?in fact certain scenes which they found highly objectionable were set in a temple of their faith.

Demonstrations were organised in the street outside and a few days later the play was withdrawn. Was this the proper action to have taken? It is possible that letting the play continue to run may have caused social upheaval and even violence. On the other hand, censoring it was certainly an infringement of the right to freedom of expression of the playwright [himself incidentally a member of the same socio-religious group as the protesters], of the actors and others involved in the production, not forgetting the audiences who had made their bookings?

One very real danger is that what begins today as censorship for valid reasons can easily degenerate tomorrow into outright repression. Everyone knows of the case of Salman Rushdie whose novel The Satanic Verses caused a worldwide reaction culminating in the famous ?fatwa? by the religious leaders of Iran, calling for the author to be put to death for blasphemy. As a result he had to go into hiding for years and even today his life may still be in danger. This is light-years from the famous saying attibuted to Voltaire (1694-1778) ?I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.?

These difficult questions are becoming all the more pertinent in modern societies where people of very different cultures are living in close proximity and the world in any case is a global village?