University of Maryland cancels screening of porn movie

[Barrister]

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 ?

This era of the internet, blogging, desktop printing, webcasting, etc. means this kind of analysis is less persuasive than it has been in almost all of history.  There are multitudes of opportunities for freedom of speech without intruding on the property rights of others.

[Oexmelin]

But what magic shields the internet from the same kind of argument ? What about internet providers' property rights ? Networks Board owners ? (i.e.: Paradox's decision which led to Languish...).

[Admiral Yi]

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 ?

Television, newspapers, magazines, lecture halls, the internet, face to face, phones, etc?

You're right that propery rights entail control of the *dissemination* of speech, but the universe of potential dissemination is infinite and the barriers to entry low or nonexistent.  If Big Brother buys your newspaper, start a new newspaper.  What I don't buy is that the government has an obligation to disseminate your speech for you. 

[Barrister]

But what magic shields the internet from the same kind of argument ? What about internet providers' property rights ? Networks Board owners ? (i.e.: Paradox's decision which led to Languish...).

Well ISP neutrality is a hot topic as of late (more for issues of commercial issues than for politics or porn), but I didn't think there was much a debate when it came to website owners - they clearly have the right to censor speech.

Heck, I think the way the law seems to be evolving is that they are almost obliged to - that they need to censor hate material or risk being prosecuted for disseminating hate speech, or they need to remove libelous material or risk being sued for defamation.

[Oexmelin]

If Big Brother buys your newspaper, start a new newspaper. 

You think this is a low entry fee ?

Where can I go face to face if more and more places where people actually meet are actually private property: plaza in front of large skyscrapers, gated communities, churches, restaurants, even some streets now...

My main concern is that sort of attitude is a symptom for what I think is actually pretty low tolerance for disagreable messages and the capacity of individuals to actually embody them. I find it hard to be against Political Correctness, for instance, while retreating to a judicial position that actually enforces it.

[Admiral Yi]

You think this is a low entry fee ?

4 xeroxed pages stapled together is pretty low.  Obviously getting from there to mass circulation daily will take a bit more.  But don't forget you have all that money from the sale of your old newspaper.

Where can I go face to face if more and more places where people actually meet are actually private property: plaza in front of large skyscrapers, gated communities, churches, restaurants, even some streets now...

You could have a face to face conversation in any of those places. 

My main concern is that sort of attitude is a symptom for what I think is actually pretty low tolerance for disagreable messages and the capacity of individuals to actually embody them. I find it hard to be against Political Correctness, for instance, while retreating to a judicial position that actually enforces it.

To a certain extent I agree, as part of the ongoing trend (at least in the US) for people to segregate themselves into like-minded communities and focus only on media that reinforces pre-existing beliefs.  But then you're no longer talking about free speech, or about dissemination (you could give free copies of Mother Jones to every household in Hitler County Alabama and they'd just toss it in the trash), but about a requirement to listen to speech.  Which is maybe what you've been talking about all along: not the right to speak but the right to be heard.

[Fireblade]

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.

I can do you one better. In a class on the exploration and colonization of the Americas, we watched these two movies on Christopher Columbus. They were dogshit movies, but dude, they easily qualified as softcore porn. On both movies, when they got to the Americas, they showed titties in like every scene. There was this one chick in the one where this apparently famous French actor playing Columbus, Gilles Duceppe or some fucking frog name like that, who had gloriously huge titties. She was I guess the Pocahontas of the movie, and bitch was easily Caliga-approved. The other one had a weirdly star-studded cast too. Tom Selleck was King Ferdinand and I think Sigourney Weaver was Queen Isabella.

[Richard Hakluyt]

"Tom Selleck was King Ferdinand and I think Sigourney Weaver was Queen Isabella" 

[Fireblade]

"Tom Selleck was King Ferdinand and I think Sigourney Weaver was Queen Isabella" 

Yeah, it was a weird movie. 

[Fireblade]

"WHERE ARE YOUR NATIVE SLUTS WITH BIG TITS?" - Caligus Columbus

[DontSayBanana]

Here's how I see this: individuals have the right to expression, and individuals have the right to refrain from harmful expression, and they have the right to block harmful expression against them (before Yi and Grumbler jump down my throat, this does not defend blocking evolution being taught in schools- Darwinism is one of several alternative scientific theories; creationism is one of several alternative historical theories- academically, the two are not conflicting and can exist mutually). Private organizations have the right to censor when they are explicitly agreed upon to act as representatives of the individual in that capacity.

However, the state has no authority under the US Constitution to impinge on those rights by threatening an inequal treatment as discipline for utilizing their rights under Amendment I.

And Beeb, US universities are not considered in loco parentis; they have additional responsibilities as representatives and custodians of the student body's condition, but not as guardians- e.g., the university is responsible for making sure that its students have all necessary facilities available to them, but the university does not have the responsibility of making any legal, financial, or medical decisions; it can only isolate students when their decisions have a harmful impact on a greater group or violate the law.

[Fireblade]

http://www.ultimate-celebs.com/free_photo/5372/newf-tailinh_forest_flower-christopher_columbus_the_discovery_04.jpg

Hmm, okay, maybe the movie wasn't as good as I remembered.

[Richard Hakluyt]

You were a teenager though, so the breasts loomed larger as it were 

[Fireblade]

You were a teenager though, so the breasts loomed larger as it were 

I was like 21 when I took that class. 

To be fair though, I was most likely stoned at the time. And I have a thing for darkies.

[Admiral Yi]

...they have the right to block harmful expression against them (before Yi and Grumbler jump down my throat, this does not defend blocking evolution being taught in schools...

What do I have to do with that?  I don't even know what you're talking about.