"If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him." – John F Kennedy
Even policing fees of a few hundred pounds could prevent an arts organisation from staging an event, but the other side of the coin (no pun intended) is knowingly jeopardising your financial support in the name of freedom of expression.
In his entertaining and thorough book Politics, Prudery & Perversions, Nicholas de Jongh says:
"…the directors of government-subsidised theatres have become well versed in the art of self-censorship to ensure that they do not offend the politicians who provide them with the financial means to survive and flourish. They would recoil from the idea of presenting any play that offered a serious critique of government policies or those of an individual minister, or any businessman whose support was crucial to the administration."
Public indignation over public funding can carry favour. Conservative Sir Horace Cutler objected to Howard Brenton's anti-Thatcher play A Short Sharp Shock provoking an apology from arts minister Norman St John Stevas.
The same Cutler threatened the National Theatre with the loss of its GLC grant over Romans in Britain (the director of that production, Michael Bogdanov, spoke about it on the BTG podcast in 2013).
State funding is one thing but with less of it around more and more arts organisations are reliant on financial backing from the business sector.
Whilst funding from business represents only 17% of private investment in theatre (dwarfed by trusts / foundations and individual giving) in money terms it represents some £14 million annually according to a recent Arts Council report.
With business investment on the rise, the risk of censorship can only be increasing alongside.
The threat of arts censorship raises it head when funding has been offered and accepted and then withdrawn as happened to New York's Public Theater in 2017.
In this case, Delta Air Lines withdrew its funding during their production of Julius Caesar because of Trump Junior's Twitter-rage at its Donald Trump-like Caesar coming to a notably gruesome end.
A less well-endowed theatre company may not have been able to similarly withstand the financial blow.
What does that say to a director and isn’t it one of the functions of art to subvert the established way of seeing things? Where would a society be without artists' criticism of it, their commenting on it, challenging stereotypes and assumptions, holding to account those in charge?
And where does that leave our playwrights? If you know what you want to write is unlikely to be produced then would you still write it? Do you step back from upsetting the sensibilities of others in the name of self-restraint or self-censorship, or do you hold fast even at the expense of your livelihood?
John Osborne said of the Lord Chamberlain, "eventually you can’t avoid thinking of him while you’re writing. He sits on your shoulder like a terrible nanny."
In 2013, a UN Special Rapporteur concluded that the same issue persists: "…the fear censorship generates in artists and art institutions often leads to self-censorship, which stifles art expression and impoverishes the public sphere."
As a producer, do you avoid all controversial plays, playwrights, actors or directors for fear of ending in the no-win situation London's Royal Court Theatre found itself over Rita, Sue and Bob Too?
In light of their #metoo inspired day of action and having published industry guidelines against sexual harassment and abuse of authority, the venue decided to cancel last year's run of the play's touring production because of its storyline of abuse of two teenagers by an older man.
Royal Court artistic director Vicky Featherstone said she was left "rocked to the core by accusations of censorship and the banning of a working-class female voice. For that reason, I have invited the current Out of Joint production of Rita, Sue and Bob Too back to the Royal Court for its run. As a result of this helpful public debate, we are now confident that the context with which Andrea Dunbar’s play will be viewed will be an invitation for new conversations.”
As the visual arts world considers its response to campaigners' demands to re-label (or even remove) works by artists now known to have been abusive or sexually predatory from galleries, is this a signal that the theatre industry may wish to identify its own red lines?
Are adaptations of The Canterbury Tales to be quietly dropped because Geoffrey Chaucer was accused of "raptus" understood to be rape, seduction or abduction of a minor? How does the debate respond to the work of Oscar Wilde who was imprisoned for an offence that no longer exists? Does Thriller Live! get a stay of execution whilst the California Court of Appeal considers the latest suit against Michael Jackson?