35 years is a long time but that is exactly how long it has been since the definition of what exactly constitutes obscenity and pornography was established - in 1975.

Six months is also a long time in politics, one-tenth of a legislature in actual fact, but that is how long a parliamentary committee set up to revisit that definition has been in getting off the ground.

The pornography and obscenity regulations of 15 July 1975 define something as being pornographic or obscene if “its dominant characteristic is the exploitation of, or undue emphasis on, sex, or…crime, horror, cruelty and violence; or it directly or indirectly advertises or gives information on any article considered to be pornographic or obscene”.

The 1975 law adds, “Provided that an article shall not be considered to be pornographic or obscene to the extent that it serves the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern”.

What the Front Against Censorship, which is quite rightly concerned that the law in its current form inhibits free artistic expression, is proposing along such lines is the not unreasonable suggestion that the definition is changed to “any product which graphically depicts sexual acts with the intent of causing sexual arousal”. It also contends that the distribution and production of pornography should be decriminalised as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law”.

But, it was reported this week, the parliamentary committee appointed to thrash out the issue is still only in the initial stages of its work. It is, by now, high time the committee gets on with it and brings the law up to date to reflect cultural and artistic realities this day and age.

Now matters are coming to a head. We have already had the banning of a certain article from a university publication and what can only be described as ridiculous decision to ban the Stitching play from Maltese theatres.

The decision on the latter, for better or worse, has been made, has been reinforced by the courts, and the country, as in so many other areas, has been a laughing stock for its downright conservatism.

And then we had the recent outcry over the banning of a pair of paintings by a certain Macedonian artist from the Gozo Contemporary Arts Festival. While the anti-censorship campaigners were quite right about the Stitching issue, after taking a look at the actual paintings in question it has to be conceded that even the more liberal members of society would think twice about bringing their families to the exhibition in question.

The definition of what, exactly, is obscene cropped up yet again this week as the anti-censorship campaigners, following a front page article we published last Sunday, cried foul over the enactment of changes to the Criminal Code that incorporate stiffer punishments for the sexual abuse of minors and the use of information and communication technology for such purposes.

With all due respect to those campaigning against censorship, a cause we cannot but agree with wholeheartedly, we do not feel that the protection of children from new and ominous threats such as the internet with its plethora of social networking sites and a bolstering of punishments for the sexual abuse of minors in all its forms can be rightly compared with protection for those who produce, import, display or possess pornography.

The problem here, from an anti-censorship viewpoint, is in the definition of pornography, something that does not impinge on the changes to the Criminal Code that came into force last week, but which all the same feeds the new rules through their definition at law. The problem is not and should not be about last week’s legislative changes, which were approved unanimously by Parliament, and which were used as a springboard to further the anti-censorship cause.

Back to Stitching and the now infamous Realta article banned from the university premises. It is true that the legislative changes in question are, as the Front Against Censorship contends, creating something of a “culture of terror amongst the artistic community, who fear being prosecuted if they include sexual themes in their work”. And yes, the legislative changes came at a time when the National Cultural Policy being drafted “made it a point of encouraging openness and artistic creativity” and in the shadow of the recent court ruling that the banning of Stitching did not violate the theatre company’s constitutional rights to free speech.

But, again, what the issue boils down to is not last week’s legislative changes, but rather the definition of pornography and obscenity. As such, the parliamentary committee established to review that definition needs to get tangibly off the ground, and quickly.