Banksy’s Censored Mural

When Democratic States Mirror Authoritarian Tactics

The Immediate Censorship: A Familiar Pattern

In a move that echoes the artistic suppression characteristic of authoritarian regimes, security guards at London’s Royal Courts of Justice swiftly covered up a new Banksy mural on 8 September 2025. The artwork depicted a judge in traditional wig and robe using a gavel to beat a prone protester holding a blood-spattered placard. Banksy authenticated the work through his usual channel—an Instagram post simply captioned “Royal Courts Of Justice. London”. The covering of the mural, which appeared just two days after nearly 900 people were arrested at a pro-Palestine demonstration in London, raises uncomfortable questions about artistic freedom in democracies and how official responses to dissident art increasingly resemble those in authoritarian states.

The rapid deployment of barriers and black plastic sheeting to conceal the artwork mirrors tactics employed by regimes that fear the subversive power of artistic expression. As one witness, Matteo, who observed the covering process, stated: “I think it’s disgusting that they would just cover it up. They are clearly afraid of the response this will get”. This instinct to suppress rather than engage with critical art reflects a global pattern where those in power attempt to control public discourse by limiting what can be seen and discussed.

Historical Context: Art as a Threat to Power

The suppression of art that challenges state authority has deep roots in authoritarian governance. As noted by the Human Rights Foundation, “Authoritarians have always understood a certain truth: creativity is a threat to their power”. Historical precedents abound, from Nazi Germany’s 1937 “Degenerate Art” exhibition that confiscated over 20,000 works deemed threatening to state ideology, to Stalin’s Soviet Union where Socialist Realism became the only permitted artistic style, leading to the arrest or execution of artists who deviated from state-approved themes.

Contemporary authoritarian states continue this tradition. In Cuba, Decree 349 requires artists to obtain government permission before any public performances or exhibitions. In Egypt, the music style mahraganat has been banned by the state-controlled Musicians Union for “indecency” due to its focus on poverty and police brutality. Turkish filmmakers face charges of “terrorist propaganda” for documenting Kurdish experiences, while Iranian rapper Toomaj Salehi faced a death sentence (later overturned) for supporting the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement through his music.

The Anatomy of Artistic Suppression: Methods Shared Across Regimes

The covering of Banksy’s mural demonstrates several censorship techniques that align with authoritarian practices:

1. Obfuscation and Concealment

By physically hiding the artwork, authorities effectively engage in visual censorship. This approach parallels how authoritarian regimes remove controversial art from public view. As noted by the organisation Freemuse, which documented 1,200 violations of artistic freedom in 2021 alone, the physical removal of art is a primary suppression tactic.

2. Legal Justification

While the covering was officially executed by court staff rather than through formal legal channels, the context matters. The artwork appeared amidst growing tensions around protest rights in Britain, particularly concerning the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Authoritarian regimes often use legal frameworks to legitimise artistic suppression, bending anti-terror, blasphemy, and indecency laws to target critical artists.

3. Creating Chilling Effects

The swift response to Banksy’s work sends a clear message to other artists: criticism of state institutions may lead to suppression. This produces self-censorship, which anthropologist Banu Karaca notes is particularly effective because it “ensures that any art cannot be a meaningful form of cultural expression”. In Russia, vague laws on “offending religious believers” have created an environment where artists must constantly guess where the invisible lines are.

The Democratic Slippery Slope: When Protection Becomes Repression

The justification often given for suppressing critical art in authoritarian states is the protection of national security, public morality, or social stability. In the case of Banksy’s mural, the location on the Royal Courts of Justice—a Grade One-listed building with the highest level of historical protection—might provide a veneer of legitimacy to the covering. However, this echoes how authoritarian regimes often use culturally or historically significant contexts to justify censorship.

As the Pittsburgh Arts Council warns, “The suppression of the arts is often one of the first signs of rising authoritarianism”. They note concerning trends including increased censorship and content restrictions, defunding of arts institutions, state-controlled cultural narratives, vilification of artists, surveillance and harassment, and criminalisation of artistic expression. While the UK remains a democracy, the covering of Banksy’s work aligns with these early warning signs.

The response from authorities gains particular significance given recent statements by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, who expressed concerns about judges being subjected to “increasing and increasingly unacceptable sensationalist and inaccurate abuse”. While protecting judicial integrity is important, the balance between protection and censorship remains delicate—and often tips toward repression in authoritarian contexts.

Artistic Resistance and the Failure of Censorship

Despite attempts at suppression, Banksy’s artwork—like much dissident art in authoritarian states—gained greater visibility through the very act of censorship. By sharing images on Instagram, Banksy circumvented the physical covering, demonstrating how artists increasingly find ways to bypass suppression. As Jodie Ginsberg of Index on Censorship notes: “Ultimately, censorship doesn’t work. And that’s because of the very nature of artistic expression itself: that the more ways the censors try to find to shut down the ideas, the beliefs they don’t like, the more artists find creative ways to express those same ideas”.

This dynamic plays out globally. In Iran, despite severe consequences, artists continue to support movements like “Woman, Life, Freedom”. In China, despite the 2011 ban on time-travel television genres that challenge official historical narratives, artists find subtle ways to question state orthodoxy. The covering of Banksy’s mural follows this pattern: the attempt to hide the artwork has generated more attention than if it had been left untouched.

The Bigger Picture: Democracy’s Resilience Tested

The covering of Banksy’s mural occurs within a broader global context where democratic institutions are being tested. As the Pittsburgh Arts Council observes: “Democracy in America has always been aspirational, never perfect. But that does not mean it’s not worth striving for. In fact, it is precisely because the promise of democracy remains unfulfilled that we must fight to protect it—and recognise that the arts and human expression are essential to that pursuit”. This sentiment applies equally to the UK and other democracies facing similar challenges.

Art possesses unique power to challenge authority because it operates on emotional and symbolic levels that bypass rational argument. As analysed by Kraut Art, “Art doesn’t obey. It resists reduction. A poem can mean five things at once. A painting can feel like a wound, a prayer, and a scream in the same breath”. This multidimensional quality makes art particularly threatening to systems of control—whether in outright authoritarian states or democracies showing authoritarian tendencies.

Conclusion: Vigilance Against Creeping Censorship

The covering of Banksy’s mural at the Royal Courts of Justice serves as a reminder that artistic freedom cannot be taken for granted in any society. While the UK’s action pales in comparison to the imprisonment, torture, and execution of artists in authoritarian states, it exists on the same spectrum of control. The incident highlights how easily protections of artistic expression can erode when authorities prioritise order over dialogue and security over expression.

As argued by the Human Rights Foundation, “Art allows one to express their opinions, beliefs, identity, and humanity. That is why its ability to exist and be created freely must be safeguarded as the cornerstone of a truly democratic society”. Protecting dissident art—especially when it critiques our own institutions—remains one of the most reliable indicators of a healthy democracy. The covering of Banksy’s work should therefore concern all who value democratic principles, serving as a call to vigilance against the gradual normalisation of censorship tactics that we rightly criticise when employed by authoritarian regimes.

The struggle over Banksy’s mural ultimately demonstrates that the boundary between democratic and authoritarian approaches to dissident art is not as fixed as we might assume. Maintaining that boundary requires constant vigilance, because as the Pittsburgh Arts Council warns, “when creative expression is criminalised, it’s not long before other freedoms follow”.