Censorship in The United Kingdom - Specific Cases

Specific Cases

• In 1873, controversy over the depiction of William Ewart Gladstone, Robert Lowe, 1st Viscount Sherbrooke, and Acton Smee Ayrton in W. S. Gilbert and Gilbert Arthur à Beckett's The Happy Land led to the play's licence being revoked by the Lord Chamberlain. A censored version of the play was eventually allowed to be performed, but uncensored scripts, with the censored portions printed in all capital letters, were printed by the theatre's manager. The play became a smash hit.
• In 1922, the novel Ulysses by James Joyce was banned in the United Kingdom when it was declared obscene.
• In 1985, the British government attempted to ban the book Spycatcher by MI5 officer Peter Wright because of the sensitive material it contained. Several British newspapers attempted to report on its principal allegations, but were served with gag orders. They persisted and were tried for contempt of court, charges that were later dropped.
• In December 2004, controversy surrounding the play Behzti sparked violent protests leading to the play's cancellation. A controversial scene set in a Sikh temple included rape, physical abuse, and murder. Some members of the Sikh community found the play deeply offensive to their faith.
• On 15 January 2008 it was announced that the trial of Wang Yam, accused of murdering Allan Chappelow, would be held 'in camera' on the grounds of the administration of justice and national security. This was the first UK murder trial held behind closed doors. The UK press were prohibited from speculating as to the reasons for this order.
• In 2008, the poem Education for Leisure was removed from the AQA Anthology, after complaints were received. The poem explores the mind of a person who is planning to commit a murder.
• Starting in 2008 the press were barred from printing the names of concerned parties in the murder of Baby Peter, a 17 month old boy. Websites which published the names of the defendants and the boy came under police investigation for conducting an "internet hate campaign." On 10 August 2009 the ban was lifted.
• In 2011 a series of privacy injunctions, so called 'super injunctions', gained widespread attention. The press was barred from publishing details about various prominent individuals. One case involving journalist and broadcaster Andrew Marr was dropped; another involving footballer Ryan Giggs became untenable, although many such injunctions remain in force.
• In July 2011, highlights from The Daily Show, an American TV program, were not shown on Channel 4's More4 channel because showing coverage of the House of Commons in a comedic or satirical context in Britain is prohibited by parliamentary rules. American viewers were able to see the material.
• In January 2012, British communications regulator Ofcom revoked Press TV's licence to broadcast in the UK; it remains available via the internet. Ofcom found that the News channel's editorial control was based in Tehran, which breaches the Communications Act 2003. This had come to their attentiont while investigating a Press TV interview with journalist Maziar Bahari, given under duress, in which he 'confessed' that western journalists working in Iran were spies. A connection has been made by opponents of the decision with Wikileaks cables suggesting the US and UK governments wanted to end Press TV's broadcasting licence in response to the Iranian government's jamming of the BBC Persian Service and the Voice of America.
• In August 2012, following publication of naked photographs of Prince Harry, lawyers for his father, Prince Charles, issued threats of legal action. The photographs were not used by British newspapers or television stations after St James’s Palace warned that the Royal Family regarded the pictures as a gross invasion of the prince’s privacy.
• In September 2012 Britain’s royal household began legal proceedings against a French magazine, Closer, that published paparazzi photographs of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge and wife of Prince William. And on 18 September a French court ordered the magazine to hand over all digital copies of the topless photos within 24 hours and blocked further publication of what it called a "brutal display" of the couple's private moments. The case is the first of two legal actions, St. James's Palace said that family lawyers would also be filing a criminal complaint.