Is there ever a case for censorship? For many reasons, many people the world over would say yes. The one thing most of those reasons have in common is generally "protection". This can mean protecting national security, moral standards, the innocence of children - and even protecting us from information which might hinder economic progress (or someone's financial investment). However, the case is also sometimes made for the censorship to protect human rights. The current issue of Index on Censorship contains an article by Ursula Owen on "hate speech". "Hate speech, as Americans call it, is a troubling matter for people who believe in free speech," she writes. "It is abusive, insulting, intimidating and harassing. And it may lead to violence, hatred or discrimination; and it kills." Hate speech is generally defended in the US as the price a society has to pay for safeguarding free expression; as soon as one thing is censored, the logic goes, a precedent is set and you're on the slippery slope.

A case in point is that of the feminist author Andrea Dworkin, who campaigned against pornography as a medium which subordinates women to men. The campaign largely failed in the US, but censorship laws were introduced in Canada. However, under this legislation Dworkin's own work was banned for a time. In the 1980s, some universities in the US introduced "speech codes" which forbade, on their campuses, sexist and racist remarks, or remarks which were derogatory of a particular religion - the birth of PC (political correctness).

Protection of vulnerable groups was now to the fore of societal values, and with this came a new sort of censorship. Owen refers to the argument of free-speech advocates: "Dialogue and democracy are more effective tools in understanding the anatomy of hate than silence." Censorship and hate speech are seen as destructive. Finding a happy medium is no easy task.