Politically speaking, the period following any conflict or regime change in any country is always marked by some kind of "creation and protection of a new national political identity. Moral censorship, like political censorship, is closely allied to national identity and to xenophobia, as it insists on certain social behaviour and often a racial, as well as moral, purity that is essentially mythical" (O’Leary 2016, 11). In Egypt, after the 2011 revolution, El-Shimi observes: "From an autocratic government to a parliament dominated by Islamists, the topic of censorship on creative expression – whether imposed or from the artists themselves – has been both a fact and a fear in contemporary Egyptian society" (El-Shimi 2012). Female social activists are regarded as political activists, and thus, punished. If a woman dares to talk about politics, it amounts to a self-confession that she is a man. Hence, she is imprisoned and given male names as a kind of punishment and loss of identity (Amine 2016, 123).
In her memoir, The Talk of Darkness, El Bouih (2008) recalls how in prison, she has been given a number and a male name – Rachid, as a kind of identity erasure and femininity negation. In Morocco, talking politics is considered a crime against society during The Years of Lead: "As for women prisoners, the situation was even worse, for they were punished for daring to practice politics – an exclusively male domain – and thus challenged patriarchal cooption" (Amine 2016, 123). Although this is very true, the two performances of Zitan and Shabayek suffer less political censorship than social, moral or religious censorship.
Although political content is an extreme case of social media censorship, it raises significant issues regarding the freedom of expression and other forms of censorship, namely literary censorship which may expose individuals to threats. Long before the age of social media, governments imposed strict censorship on writing and writers, for they realise that the pen is more dangerous and effective than the sword. In this regard, literary censorship involves two stages – "Prior censorship" and "punitive censorship". The former means the attempts to prevent something from being publicly expressed, while the latter punishes someone for what they have already published (O’Leary 2016, 8). Over the history of literature, writers are exposed to threats, exile, imprisonment and even assassination if their works prove to be a threat to the established order. "Khomeini shoots writers and poets. At times he even shoots the publisher, the printer, the bookbinder, and even the paper merchant" (Gafaiti 1997). Of course, censorship is highly associated with the sociopolit ical system of each country.
Concerning theatre, censorship is always related to the idea of an acceptable speech and performance; what should/should not be said or done on the stage according to societal consensus. This, in turn, creates a permanent opposition between liberal and conservative views. The liberals insist on total artistic freedom of expression, considering it a fundamental right. Conservatives call for restraint and for acts that do not offend traditional norms. A compromise to such a debate is provided by Catherine O’Leary (2016) who said that the fundamental right of freedom of expression should be balanced among competing alternative rights like privacy, respect and civility, among many others. She adds that in all societies there are many forms of non-regulatory cultural control which "have an impact on authors, spectators, and society generally. As long as there are asymmetries of power within society, the question of respect for minorities, protection for certain groups and the abuse of power on the part of dominant elites will remain part of the debate" (7).