I disagree that self-censorship is necessarily a bad thing. There are many times when I censor myself. For example, if my girlfriend were to ask me how that dress made her look, I probably wouldn’t say ‘it makes you look fat.’

Self-censorship is an integral part of being a civilized grown-up.

It is also, often true that other events, and the timing and placement of things, can change the context of something. I support the Iraq war, but I don’t have an issue with people protesting it. Protesting the Iraq war at a soldiers funeral isn’t appropriate though, and people should ’self-censor’ themselves at such a time.

It is also true that context can change an artistic message. The Rachel Corrie play can arguably have a very different message early thise year (or imagine it during the Lebanon conflict this summer) than it would at other times. If an artists message would be changed by the context, I can quite easily see them choosing to not present their art within that context.

Here is another example. This spring comedy central choose to censor an image of Mohammad from a South Park episode made in response to the cartoon controversy. South Park has of course a long history of presenting Jesus in a less than holy fashion, and has been quite willing to do so (they offend Jews too). Many Christians have protested against South Park for years, but Comedy Central ’stood firm’ against their demands for censorship. When it came time to show Mohammad though, they caved. It is hard to present this as anything but giving into fear of violence, rather than a desire not to offend.

There are many times when choosing to not offend is the right thing to do. Sometimes instead offending is the right thing to do and the only way to get the desired message across. That can be a judgement call.

One thing I find interesting though. You seem oppossed to the decision to not show the Rachel Corrie play, but are supportive of the decision to not show the Opera. Why?

From an academic paper:
“On May 23, 1998, the New York Times announced that the Manhattan Theatre Club would be canceling its scheduled production of playwright Terrence McNally’s newest play, Corpus Christi, due to bomb and death threats made against the theatre, its personnel, and the playwright. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights disavowed responsibility for the threats but did publicly applaud the decision, calling the play “blasphemous.”"
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/theatre_journal/v051/51.2pr_mcnally.html

When Corpus Christi was shown in Germany in 2000, there have been death threats and bomb threats as well and it was cancelled:
http://www.cityinfonetz.de/tagblatt/thema/thema39/

You write:On the other hand, if such things were cancelled simply because it became apparent that many people didn’t like it, even though their would be no violence as a response, I have no problem with that.

“People didn’t like it” sounds as if there were not enough theater visitors. I am not a fan of Rachel Corrie and I don’t know much about the play, but I think it was cancelled due to political considerations. The article I linked to says:
“In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon’s illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation,” Nicola said on Monday.
“We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn’t want to take.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/theatre-gets-stagefright-over-play-on-israeli-death-of-activist/2006/02/28/1141095740986.html

That’s self-censorship! They were afraid to offend anyone. They probably feared repurcussions. That’s not good either.
Yes, violence is worse.

Thanks for commenting.

There is a difference in the examples you show and this one in Berlin. The opera in Berlin was cancelled for seurity reasons, it was cancelled because of fear of violence.

As I said, I fully support the right of Muslims to protest this Opera. I have a big problem though with using violence or threat of violence to halt the performance. The two are vastly different.

If Rickman’s play or McNally’s play couldn’t go one because of fear of violence I would denounce that 100%. It would be absolutely wrong, and it is important not to allow that sort of thing to spread by rewarding it.

On the other hand, if such things were cancelled simply because it became apparent that many people didn’t like it, even though their would be no violence as a response, I have no problem with that.

The difference is huge, and very signifigant.

It is also probably fair to distinguish violence that is advocated. Many Muslims of course support the Palestine cause. Some of that support is focused on destroying Israel (which I think is very wrong) and some of it is focused on helping the Palestinians (which is nobel in intent at least.) That particular issue is very complex, and certainly there are shades of grey there, but I think it fair to say that a lot of Muslims that support Palestine don’t view it as connect to ‘infidels’ rather connected to ‘invaders.’

As for passive support, it is difficult to know what you mean by that. Is not speaking out ‘passive support’ or is more required? While I hope to encourage more Muslims to denounce violence, those that do not are not ‘responsible’ for the violence.

There are also other issues that get mixed up in it. For example, Muslims in Europe are often treated as second class citizens. Some respond violently, others don’t but ‘understand’ why those that do feel that way and while they may not support the violence, also don’t want to support those that the violence is directed against. Religious intolerance and social justice issues become blended together, unfortunately often in a detrimental way.

I think you have misread Europes attitute though. I don’t think that they try to appease Arabs for cheap gas or even to reduce the risk of violence, or at least neither of those are the primary driving factors. Much of Europe, and quite a few Americans too, have lost all faith in Western Culture as a positive force. They are trying to appease their own consciouses for the crimes of their culture, (colonialism, etc.) and this has created a paralysis.

The problem isn’t so much fear as lack of belief in themselves. Unless this is addressed, I believe it to be a fatal flaw.

I also worry that the correction (fascism is a possiblilty) might be even worst than the disease.

It seems that the cancellation will be revoked and this opera will be shown after all. What a great and shrewd publicity stunt the opera house made by first announcing the cancellation. Usually hardly anybody would be interested in that opera, but now it is the talk of the town.

I think I am in a very small minority who approved of the cancellation. That opera is an insult to other religions (since it shows the severed heads of Jesus and Buddha as well) and to Mozart, the composer, himself.

What benefit would we get if we had this opera? It seems the only reason to defend this stupid opera is to avoid giving the impression of appeasement to the Islamofascists. That’s not enough for me.

I think this opera would only strengthen Islamofasicsm since it would help their propaganda. To win the war on terrorism, we need to have moderate Muslims on our side, so that they don’t support the terrorists, but give us information about them. And we want the moderate Muslims to win over their autocratic governments and fundamentalist groups in the Arab world. This opera, however, alienates the moderate Muslims and helps the fundamentalists.

Let’s not forget that theater plays critical of Christians and Israel also get canceled:

Earlier this year:
“A New York theatre company has put off plans to stage a play about an American activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza because of the current “political climate” - a decision the play’s British director, Alan Rickman, denounced as “censorship”.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/theatre-gets-stagefright-over-play-on-israeli-death-of-activist/2006/02/28/1141095740986.html

And then there is this from Oct 23, 1998: “Last May, William Donohue, the ever-vigilant president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, raised quite a ruckus about the fact that Corpus Christi, Terrence McNally’s play-in-progress, featured a gay, Christ-like protagonist who has sex, off-stage, with his male disciples. Donohue, who has a gift for strained analogies that rivals McNally’s own, has called the play “hate speech,” “bigotry,” and of course “blasphemy.” He has argued that a similar depiction of a black or Jewish religious figure would be roundly condemned. Only Catholics and their beliefs, Donohue insists, are held up to such ridicule.”
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n18_v125/ai_21273530

Yeah, yeah, this only happens to Catholics…. Right! And some Jews say these kind of attacks only happen to Jews. And some Muslims say those things only happen to Muslims.