University of Maryland cancels screening of porn movie

[Savonarola]

Speaking of porn on college, in my freshman English class we were assigned a movie called "Prospero's Books".  It was supposed to be based on Shakespeare's Tempest, but all I remember was every actor's junk flopping around.

You should have complained to the dean.  Under the Geneva Convention Peter Greenaway films are specifically banned as a form of torture.

[Savonarola]

Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? 

Back in the 1970s, when porn movies were in vogue (and long before I got there,) my university regularly showed movies like Deep Throat for campus movie night.  The room where they had campus movie night was the university's large lecture hall where intro chem and physics were taught.  I hope they cleaned out the hall thoroughly before the next class.

[Razgovory]

I think showing a 138 minute hardcore porn movie in public is the best way to fight pornography.  The memory of blue balls would haunt all of the guys in the room for the rest of their lives.

Speaking of porn on college, in my freshman English class we were assigned a movie called "Prospero's Books".  It was supposed to be based on Shakespeare's Tempest, but all I remember was every actor's junk flopping around.

Yeah, but you are the guy who ponders what it would be like to suck the president's cock.

[DGuller]

Yeah, but you are the guy who ponders what it would be like to suck the president's cock.

Link?

[The Nickname Who Was Thursday]

Yeah, but you are the guy who ponders what it would be like to suck the president's cock.

Link?

[Malthus]

Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? 

Back in the 1970s, when porn movies were in vogue (and long before I got there,) my university regularly showed movies like Deep Throat for campus movie night.  The room where they had campus movie night was the university's large lecture hall where intro chem and physics were taught.  I hope they cleaned out the hall thoroughly before the next class.

There was also the curiousity factor. Back in the '70s, you couldn't just download porn to your computer in the privacy of your own room, and some people may not have even seen any porn.

Can that possibly be the case for any live college student these days? 

[Savonarola]

There was also the curiousity factor. Back in the '70s, you couldn't just download porn to your computer in the privacy of your own room, and some people may not have even seen any porn.

Can that possibly be the case for any live college student these days? 

Okay, fair enough, there weren't even VCRs in the 70s. 

[Drakken]

So they canceled a screening of a legally-made movie which was attended by people who had legal age, because it was labeled pornography? Sure, it's hardcore porn, but it's still legal. What's the difference between cancelling this and, say, a screening of Cannibal Holocaust or Hostel, then? Isn't this kind of imbroglio covered by the First Amendment?

But oh yeah, they were going to see cocks, cunts, and boobs in that screening. Please save them from corrupting the children, even when they are adults who can decide by themselves.

And yeah, Carmen Luvana is hawt. And one of my girlfriend's friend looks just like her...

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't this kind of imbroglio covered by the First Amendment?

Not even remotely.  If students were being prohibited from making their own pornos it might be.  But it's about how the university spends money to entertain.

[CountDeMoney]

So they canceled a screening of a legally-made movie which was attended by people who had legal age, because it was labeled pornography? Sure, it's hardcore porn, but it's still legal. What's the difference between cancelling this and, say, a screening of Cannibal Holocaust or Hostel, then? Isn't this kind of imbroglio covered by the First Amendment?

But oh yeah, they were going to see cocks, cunts, and boobs in that screening. Please save them from corrupting the children, even when they are adults who can decide by themselves.

This is college we're talking about, specifically University of Maryland.  There's enough date rape going on as it is, they don't need a primer.

[Oexmelin]

Not even remotely.  If students were being prohibited from making their own pornos it might be.  But it's about how the university spends money to entertain.

Is it ? The way I read it, it was about the University threatening to cut funds to the Student Union who decided to show the movie.

As a larger question, you usually come up with this kind of defense anytime similar causes happen: do commercial malls have a right to deny entrance to people with offensive T-shirts on the basis that they are private property ? Do private universities have a right to forbid students from manifesting on their grounds ? Do gated communities have a right to legislate the presence of political signs on yards ?

If the answer is narrowly, judicially constructed as «yes» each time, doesn't that have the effect of shrinking more and more the concept of the «public», of tying it ever more closely to ownership/money ?

[Admiral Yi]

Is it ? The way I read it, it was about the University threatening to cut funds to the Student Union who decided to show the movie.

I still don't see how that goes against the 1st amendment.  We've talked several times about negative and positive rights.  The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government is not supposed to prevent you from doing.  It doesn't create a governmental responsibility to subsidize those activities.

As a larger question, you usually come up with this kind of defense anytime similar causes happen: do commercial malls have a right to deny entrance to people with offensive T-shirts on the basis that they are private property ? Do private universities have a right to forbid students from manifesting on their grounds ? Do gated communities have a right to legislate the presence of political signs on yards ?

If the answer is narrowly, judicially constructed as «yes» each time, doesn't that have the effect of shrinking more and more the concept of the «public», of tying it ever more closely to ownership/money ?

I've always proudly proclaimed my love and admiration for property rights.  I don't see the problem.

[Oexmelin]

I've always proudly proclaimed my love and admiration for property rights.  I don't see the problem.

I was hoping to take the discussion away from American Constitutionalism.

What space is there left for actual freedom of speech ? The streets ? If you want to silence people, you simply buy the space / the airwaves ? Why should property rights entail control of speech ? Does freedom of speech mean anything if it is confined to spaces and venues where no one will actually hear it or see it ?

[Barrister]

As a larger question, you usually come up with this kind of defense anytime similar causes happen: do commercial malls have a right to deny entrance to people with offensive T-shirts on the basis that they are private property ? Do private universities have a right to forbid students from manifesting on their grounds ? Do gated communities have a right to legislate the presence of political signs on yards ?

Universities are (as they often are) a special case however.  They are found to be independent of government, even though many are entirely reliant on government funding.

Universities have often been found to be in loco parentis for their students, which means they have an obligation to look out for their students that far exceeds the obligation of a mall owner or gated community.

[Oexmelin]

Universities are (as they often are) a special case however.  They are found to be independent of government, even though many are entirely reliant on government funding.

Universities have often been found to be in loco parentis for their students, which means they have an obligation to look out for their students that far exceeds the obligation of a mall owner or gated community.

Perhaps, but I am not sure how this should apply. It seems to me the University here made a moral call and threatened to use financial leverage to censor the Student Union. It is this recurrent use of the financial weapon - or of the «security» excuse - rather than that of the discussion - of the use of speech itself - that I find disturbing. It should be even more true of a University, I think, precisely because it *should* be a space for debate, not a space to shield already shielded kids.