What part does obscenity play in censorship?

DH Lawrence was charged with obscenity- twice- but I think that underneath all that sex talk, there are some political ideas that would rile people. For example, in The Rainbow, there's a scene where Ursula denounces the notion of society and criticises the empire and the conditions of the miners. Not only is there a breakdown in society but a strain in the relationships between man and woman. Consistently in the novel, the male characters realise that the women can take on the identities of wife and mother as something separate from the man. So even without the sexual content, which is more candour rather than lurid content, the novel still would have been controversial as it was published during wartime, where the whole point was that the individual must be sacrificed for the greater society.

Is censorship ever simply for getting rid of obscene content or is it inherently political? Is there such a thing, outside pornographic literature, as 'obscene literature'? And how do we decide between what is candid and truthful and what is obscene?

The Well of Loneliness by Radcliffe Hall was banned due to its references to lesbian relationships. It was banned because it "defended unnatural practices between women." (The Court's words, not mine). It contained no graphic sex scenes whatever.

Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author was banned from being performed in the UK by the Lord Chamberlain until 1928, although I'm not exactly sure why, but there's no sex in it - public order was also cited as a reason.

In addition, Spycatcher recently caused a furore - it was banned (for security reasons) in the UK despite it being readily available in France, Australia, New Zealand and the Kremlin.

The Obscene Publications Act was changed in the 60's which introduced the defence of artistic merit into English law. This is what allowed D H Lawrence's books to be published in England -where before they were published in France. Both Lady Chatterley & Hugh Selby Junior's Requiem for a Dream were put on trial for obscenity in England and lost. This pretty much meant that most literary forms of sex were allowed, but images still remained controversial.

The act defined obscene as deprave or corrupt which meant books with drug/criminal references were also subject to censorship. There was also a trial of the Unicorn Bookshop for selling Ballard's Atrocity Exhibition. Ballardian.com's website has got a good description.

By and large most of the stuff was banned for reasons of "immorality," but some of it was political.

Plays were heavily censored in the UK until the licensing act was repealed in 1968, it required that every single play performed in a licensed theatre be approved by the Lord Chamberlain's office. Many playwrights, like Shaw, got around the limitations by staging their plays in private clubs which were exempt from licensing.

I suppose morality is a political issue; it's what society dictates we should believe and think about things. A lot of the Lady Chatterley Trial was not so much about the facts of what was depicted in the book but about whether Lady Chatterley and Mellors were being immoral and whether Lawrence was condoning this. Of course, literature is rife with adultery, so that's nothing new, yet it still played a big part in the prosecution's argument.

James Joyce's novel Ulysses was once banned from the market, so it may be one of the prime examples of novels that have fallen under censorship. John Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath was highly censored for its profanity by the editor. Then people were upset at him for an image he chose at the end of his novel, which he thought had always been a symbol for humanity. Steinbeck thought he was being candid and truthful instead of obscene the whole way through. People used those curse words in real life. I think the censors are usually just doing their job. I don't know when it's ever been political since writers tend to write about universal things instead of one-sided things like political parties.