A devout Muslimhymnist who enjoys a profoundly virtuous reputation in his community butcannot seem to escape the’worldlydesires’ this life has to offer. With an apology to Sarmad Khoosat, that is my drastic reduction of Zindagi Tamasha, a filmthat awaits release. But I certainly have more business doing so than any film censor board in this country.Last week, the Central Board of Film Censorship (CBFC) halted the release of Khoosat’s motion picture. By the way, what’sthe government even doingmeddling in the artistic tastes of itsprivate citizens? Pakistan has a complex history of film censorship. Formal censorship in the subcontinent began in 1918 after the passage of the first cinematography law. As per the Indian Law Institute documents,the British established censor boards in various places including Bombay, Calcutta and Lahore in the 1920s.After independence, thatregional structure carried forward until 1963 when censorship boards were centralised by government. All films in Pakistan were now submitted to one central board for certification. Come the 18th Amendment, devolution rolled in, and we were back toprovincially autonomous censorship boards. Currently, there are three functioning boards in Pakistan: the CBFC, which governs capital territory, the Punjab Board of Film Censors, and its Sindh chapter. Any film seeking release in a province has to undergo a screening process for pre-censorship. The certification criteria for all three boards is verbatim. But it’s still anyone’s guess. Films “prejudicial to the glory of Islam, or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan, public order, decency or morality”fail certification. There is more really but you get the point. Zindagi Tamasha was a potential springboard for that struggle. But it quickly became a story of compromise Ina democratic society, speech and expression inform public discourse in the ‘marketplace ofideas’. That, however, requires the free flow of opinion not only acceptable, but also provocative, unpopular, and unorthodox. Is it within the domain of government to determine standards of moral, cultural and religious values?It certainly shouldn’t be.Yet the government has continued to do so. Durj, a recent motion picture on cannibalism, was blocked because the CBFC felt such “sensitive topics should not be propagated so openly.” Every individual has a right to decide what they want to write, read, hear, or watch. The state has no business reducing the creativity of artistic expression to the values it deems appropriate. That debate belongs to the court of the peoplealone. Our constitution safeguards this freedom. But what good is any freedom if the government fails to protect it? Some might suggest censorship is a ‘reasonable restriction’ of the freedom to speech. While that is a half-baked argument, it merits a response. Under our constitution, the freedom of expression is not absolute, and ‘subject to reasonable restrictions’. But is certifying every film before allowing its release a reasonable restriction? The answer: it is not. I explain why. At this point, let’s leave the argument that a censorship regime is altogether illegal, and violative of the constitution. That’s for another day. Today, we’ll talk about pre-censorship. Pre-censorship structures differ from conventional censorship. In the latter, communication, whatever its worth, gets to enter the marketplace of ideas, and is, if at all, subsequently taken down. By contrast, under pre-censorship regimes, communication may never reach this marketplace; prior censorship subjects all speech to governmental approval, casting a wider net. In conventional censorship, the upside is that communication has to be individuallypoliced before it is punished. A system of prior screening, therefore, is more conducive to restrictions on expression. As Justice Warren of the US Supreme Court observes, all it requires is the “mere stroke of a pen or snip of the scissors.” In Pakistan, pre-censorshipis effectuated by panels including representatives from governmental departments, and the armed forces-yes. The entire process operates behind a veil of informality, insulated from public criticism. Consider the recent example of Maalik(2017). The Sindh High Court struck down theact of Mobashir Hasan (Chairman of Sindh Censorship Board), of blocking the film. And what was the reason? Failing to pinpoint one, the decertifying ordervaguely “controversial depiction of politicians, incendiary themes, and inciting dialogues”as the reasons. The whole process of prior censorship embodies the notion of willingness to conform to official opinion. Think of it. Zinadgi Tamasha had multiple edits and cuts before gettingcertification just to be censored again.One might ask: doesconventional censorship fare better? Probably not. Nor is it an alternative. Prior censorshipis certainly not a reasonable restriction on free speech, but a conventional censorship regime does not survive constitutional muster either. Both substantially burden free speech. The only difference? Currently, pre-censorship is beingpractised systematically. When one looks at the discriminate application of certification criteria between foreign and domestic films, the proposition becomes even stronger. Why are domestic films held to stricter standards? Why is the yardstick for certifyingthe ‘decency, or morality’ of western films different than that deployed for domestic productions? Socially, that outcome may comport with a cohesive thought-pattern among Pakistanis that ascribes the ‘general comfort’ of western society with ‘amorality’, ‘obscenity’, and ‘infidelity’. Legally, however, it leaves opens a case of disparate treatment under the constitution. Domestic film producers have a constitutional right to the equal application of certification criteria, that is, if we are to have any at all. In the late 19th century, the American film industry begun self-regulation throughage classification schemes developed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA), an association of the country’s largest studio houses. The arrangement is entirely voluntary, thoughfilms that fail to obtain an MPAA rating are not released in most theatres. Crucially, the MPAA age classification system does not censor the content in a film, rather it censors viewers from the content. How? The system is predicated upon individual sovereignty. Individuals or parents will not patronise objectionable content when they get to decide whether or not to watch a film, knowing what it contains. Ultimately, any step towards a freer exchange of ideas requires will. The will of the chosen-to guarantee citizens their fundamental rights, and the will of those that choose-to struggle for them. Unfortunately, Khoosat did not carry forward that willfar enough. Like many others before him,all Khoosat did, in his words, was to ensure”as a law-abiding citizen, [that] there was nothing offensive or malicious in the film.”Zindagi Tamasha was a potential springboard for that struggle. Butit quickly became a story of compromise. I began with an apology today. I close in disagreement. Because another force of change did not commit to that struggle. Because another force of change hung their head, not in shame, but in conformity and helplessness to the state’s ideology of an ordered culture. The writer, a lawyer, is currently attending New York University for post-graduate studies in law