The First Amendment and Censorship in Britain

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Growing up in America, the idea of "freedom of speech" has been ingrained in me since I was a child. For both good and bad I knew that because of the first amendment anyone in the United States could say and express what they pleased (now, of course there were times when censorship did exist by the people but rarely, if ever, was it government instigated). That meant that the KKK could have "white power" protests and that civil rights activists could march in Washington. More recently it means that gay activists can march for equality and that anti-national health care fanatics can obnoxiously protest in Town Hall meetings through the country.

It also means that artists of all kinds can produce their work for an audience without government regulation.

One of my classes at UCL is called "Moderns II." It focuses on modern literature post WWII. The topic of this lecture was on theatrical censorship in Britain. As an American I was surprised to hear that censorship of plays did not stop in Britain until 1968. And, even more incredible, this censorship committee, The Lord Chamberlain's Office, began in the 1500s. That's four hundred years ago. And if any of you know your Shakespeare - it's the SAME Lord Chamberlain's Office that existed during Shakespeare's time (its function has morphed over time).

So what did this censorship entail? It meant that every play that wanted to be produced HAD to be given to the Lord Chamberlain's Office for approval. What did they censor? Anything too political, anything talking about foreign enemies, anything concerning homosexuality, immoral behavior, and sexuality in general (I may note that what I am saying is a gross generalization - there are books and documents that I am too lazy to find). When A Streetcar Named Desire was produced in London for the first time various clergymen and officials were outraged at its "immoral" message - essentially a sympathetic prostitute who depended on the "kindness of strangers." You could not have plays simulate sex or other bodily functions on stage and language was censored heavily as well. And people from the Lord Chamberlain's Office would visit shows and take extremely detailed notes (now found in The British Library) documenting shows.

(And as a side note, even though censorship was abolished in 1968, when Margaret Thatcher was in office censorship began again.)

Obviously, there were ways to get around this. If a theatre was also listed as a "club" they could simulate sex and more controversial behavior (profanity was still not that heavily used). The biggest beacon of anti-censorship was The Royal Court Theatre. They produced and still continue to produce new and slightly controversial plays such as Look Back in Anger, The Rocky Horror Show, and more recently That Face and Enron. Even though censorship is abolished, The Royal Court still is a beacon for new and daring works.

So what does this mean? For me, it's a reminder of how much the first amendment is so ingrained in my head and how I believed that any western country was similar. Yes, while censorship did and still does exist on different levels in the States ("banned" book lists, local people shutting down shows, etc.) we haven't necessarily had anything government regulated. This is a VERY foreign idea for me. And on an artistic level, it makes me appreciate British theatre in a much different way. Britain is known for its controversial and daring plays. If Enron transfers to Broadway you will understand what I mean. America HAS a legacy of political and social playwrights (Edward Albee, Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, the list goes on...) but we don't have the legacy of censorship that Britain does. With censorship, I believe, comes a great need to boldly express opinions. Theatre and the freedom of expression, therefore, have a much deeper value. Because with censorship comes an appreciation for the freedom to express without any boundaries.

Unlike other countries who've encountered censorship, as Americans I believe that we at times forget to appreciate how lucky we are that freedom of expression (for good or for evil) has existed since the creation of the United States of America.