The court ruling that justified a ban on the play Stitching because of its vulgarity has come under fire from many in the theatre community, who say the work was not viewed in its proper light - as art.
The judgment, however, was seen by others as a reflection of the public's desire for some form of limit and as inevitable considering the law as it now stands.
On Monday, the Civil Court ruled in favour of the ban because it said the play was an affront to human dignity and the classification board had been reasonable to view it as "an offence to the whole culture of the country".
Since swearing was unacceptable in public and against the law, the judge said blasphemy and vulgar language could not be tolerated in plays, otherwise it would be discriminating against those who were punished for swearing in public.
The ruling, which is going to be appealed by the producers, stops the theatre company, Unifaun, from staging the controversial script by Scottish author Anthony Neilson.
The play, about a couple in a crisis coming to terms with loss, should have been staged in January 2009 but the Film and Stage Classification Board banned it because it felt the "envelope has been pushed beyond the limits of public decency".
Reacting to the judgment, Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant, a playwright himself, said he had not read the script but in principle disagreed with the judgment.
He said there was consensus in the modern world that some things should be censored, especially hate speech, but there was a fine line between propaganda and art. "It does not mean you cannot have an anti-Semitic character in a play."
He said he was "unimpressed" by the judge's argument that swearing in a theatre was equal to swearing in public.
"Does that mean we should stop all the American films coming to Malta? Whether you agree or not with that form of expression, it is part of the modern way of projecting reality," he said.
Theatre director Albert Marshall expressed shock that the judgment did not make the "very fundamental" distinction between reality and art.
"It's one thing to swear in public and be penalised justly. It's another to do it in an artistic context," he said, pointing out that nudity was not accepted in public but could not simply be made illegal in an artistic context.
A large number of actors, directors and theatregoers yesterday uploaded black squares on their Facebook profile display pictures in solidarity with the producers of Stitching.
On the other hand, theatre critic Paul Xuereb felt the judge really wanted to ensure the floodgates were not opened to a completely unrestrained depiction of immoral behaviour.
"I am not keen on censorship at all but I would be happier if the companies in Malta were themselves to exercise restraint. Some people seem too keen on shocking audiences. I think we need to be shocked from time to time, but a number of people are afraid this will lead to more changes in Maltese society."
He pointed out that for practical reasons the law only enabled the classification board to view the script rather than the play, which was why the court chose to do the same and refused to watch it.
He said he had nothing against "vulgarity" in plays, which was an aesthetic thing that could get tiring but did not bother him. "What disturbs many people is an excessive use of explicit sexual action on stage, which is very often the result of an inability to say something subtly. But in-your-face theatre is very fashionable nowadays."
Dr Xuereb felt the ruling was a reflection of the public's desire to have some form of limit.
The chairman for the Malta Council for Culture and the Arts, Adrian Mamo, said the outcome of the case was inevitable "because that's the way the law is".
"What really needs to be done is to amend the law. Hopefully, this is being tackled."
He disagreed with banning art but said certain kinds of expressions had to be restricted to particular contexts. Subversive theatre was not allowed on all stages around the world.
"Malta is still very far from other countries. If you go to London you can go watch Hair, a very popular musical, where everybody is nude. I don't think it would be staged here."
Alex Pace, of KRS film distributors, said this was a difficult issue because many films were packed with swear words.
"If you start banning swearing, you can ban everything. What about killing? We see it constantly on TV, films and plays. You can't just ban something because it is unacceptable in a real, public setting," he said, adding that in a cinema or theatre there were ratings to protect audiences.
Meanwhile, the Front Against Censorship issued a statement saying the ruling would trigger a new wave of censorship of the arts and fuel the intolerance already present in society.
The Front was "shocked" by the decision that the ban did not amount to an infringement of the right of freedom of speech.
"The Front is extremely doubtful how a play could have the potential to 'turn the values of society upside down'. It also doubts whether a society which censors the wilful viewing of art by adults deserves to be called civilised," it said, quoting passages of the 82-page judgment.