The practice of censoring art has been around for centuries. There's an interesting trend, though. In the past, many works of art that were considered scandalous, blasphemous, or provocative were suppressed. Some real-world examples include Egon Schiele's explicit drawings, which caused public outrage in early 20th-century Austria, or Michelangelo's "The Last Judgement" that was altered due to its "indecent" nudity. Today, these works are often accepted and celebrated for their revolutionary spirit and bravery.

Despite this increased tolerance for artistic expression, we're seeing a shift. Nowadays, some folks want to censor works from the past. It's like a parental guidance warning, but for art. Why? Well, some people argue these older pieces may promote outdated or harmful views. For example, there's been a debate about whether to continue showcasing older movies that contain racial stereotypes, like "Gone with the Wind."

What does this tell us about how we view morality and progress in art? It's a bit like comparing your great-grandparent's ideas with yours. They might seem old-fashioned, but does that make them wrong? It might mean we're evolving and refining our understanding of what's acceptable and what isn't. This points towards a dynamic conception of morality.