Porn film screening canceled at university (http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2009/04/02/20090402ODDporn-film0402-ON.html#comments)
QuoteBALTIMORE - The University of Maryland, College Park, has canceled this weekend's screening of a hard-core pornographic film after state lawmakers objected and threatened to cut funding to the flagship state university.
UM President C.D. Mote Jr. decided to cancel the screening of Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge, which was to be shown at the student union and had been approved by a student programming committee.
A behind-the-scenes negotiation between state Senate officials and the university ensued after a debate broke out Thursday on the chamber's floor over the screening.
"That's really not what Maryland residents send their young students to college campus for -- to view pornography," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller.
He acknowledged the legislature shouldn't get involved in censoring movies, but said the General Assembly is not going to support the screening of hard-core pornographic movies on a state campus paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Sen. Andrew P. Harris, a Republican from Baltimore and Harford counties, suggested amending the state's annual budget to deny any funding to a higher education institution that allows a public screening of a film marketed as an "XXX-rated adult film," unless it is part of an official academic course.
Miller indicated he would vote for the budget amendment, giving substantial backing to the threat of denying the university tens of millions of dollars in state funding.
Senators debated the evils of pornography and the First Amendment for much of the morning, but Miller postponed discussions several times as groups of school children entered the gallery on field trips to the State House.
At one point, Miller explained to students why senators kept changing the subject.
"If you kids are wondering what we're doing, we're waiting for you to leave the room," Miller said. "We're going to talk about some bad stuff."
As of Wednesday, the student union at UM had not received any complaints about the film, but many students and others on campus seemed unaware it had been scheduled.
The 138-minute film, billed as a "XXX blockbuster" by its distributor, Digital Playground of Van Nuys, Calif., was the most expensive porn movie ever made, at $10 million. It was released in September 2008.
Christopher Ruth, a spokesman for Digital Playground, said he was disappointed and upset about the cancellation. He said at least five other universities, including Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon and the University of California, Los Angeles, had screened the film and none had canceled.
"Showing a movie like this opens up a discussion, a discourse on sexuality and gender roles, and for them to stifle that discourse from happening is amazing," said Ruth.
The film was provided to the university free, so no student fees or state money was used. But some observers still questioned whether hard-core porn has a place on a college campus.
The chaplain of the Catholic Student Center, the Rev. Kyle Ingels, said pornographic films are "degrading to the human person," adding, "It really runs counter to our efforts to try to form people to be men and women who will go out and contribute to society."
Adam Kissel, director of the Individual Rights Defense Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, based in Philadelphia, said the legislature was "far out of line" for threatening to withhold funding and said Mote's apparent "capitulation" was "distressing."
Obscene content is not necessarily protected under the U.S. Constitution, Kissel said, but the fact that the student union planned to have Planned Parenthood give a prescreening presentation on safe-sex practices before the film strengthens the First Amendment argument.
Planned Parenthood, which does not endorse pornography, had accepted the invitation as a way to educate students.
Four years ago, the university's student union showed Deep Throat, the classic 1972 porn film, said Lisa Cunningham, program coordinator for the union's Hoff Theater.
She said she thought Pirates II would be a good alternative to drinking or other dangerous activities.
"We thought this would be something fun for the students to do, especially since we're getting close to the end of the semester," Cunningham said. "We're a college movie theater and we thought it would bring out the students."
Pretty rich for a Catholic chaplain to talk about contributing to society. Fucking pedophile.
Pirates I was great. One of the best pornos ever. :cool:
Carmen Luvana :mmm:
Yes, but I preferred Porn Wars (at least Ep. 1, have yet to watch 2&3). It also taught me that people, esp. women, in a galaxy far, far away speak with heavy East European accents.
Quote from: Caliga on April 04, 2009, 05:17:34 AM
Pirates I was great. One of the best pornos ever. :cool:
Carmen Luvana :mmm:
Oh she's good.
Quote"It really runs counter to our efforts to try to form people to be men and women who will go out and contribute to society."[/b]
People who watch porn never go out and contribute to society? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 08:55:10 PM
Quote"It really runs counter to our efforts to try to form people to be men and women who will go out and contribute to society."[/b]
People who watch porn never go out and contribute to society? :huh:
I've never seen it as a big communal activity to be honest with ya.
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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
Pretty rich for a Catholic chaplain to talk about contributing to society. Fucking pedophile.
Trolling, surely? Not all priests are pedophiles, and while the papacy may not run the tightest ship, holy men remain a source for good in society. I dont think I know anyone except for emo kids who'd be so dismissive and callous of what a priest has to say around here.
Quote from: Syt on April 04, 2009, 11:21:14 PM
Yes, but I preferred Porn Wars (at least Ep. 1, have yet to watch 2&3). It also taught me that people, esp. women, in a galaxy far, far away speak with heavy East European accents.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 08:55:10 PM
Quote"It really runs counter to our efforts to try to form people to be men and women who will go out and contribute to society."[/b]
People who watch porn never go out and contribute to society? :huh:
Hi!
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 06, 2009, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
Pretty rich for a Catholic chaplain to talk about contributing to society. Fucking pedophile.
Trolling, surely? Not all priests are pedophiles,
Yet all Mormons are going to hell. :( :pope:
Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2009, 08:55:10 PM
People who watch porn never go out and contribute to society? :huh:
No, they usually are a bunch of wankers
kevin
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 08:33:42 AM
Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? :lol:
I guess it's the groovy thing to do now? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2009, 12:14:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 08:33:42 AM
Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? :lol:
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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2009, 12:14:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 06, 2009, 02:39:23 PM
Yeah, but you are the guy who ponders what it would be like to suck the president's cock.
Link?
Quote from: Savonarola on April 06, 2009, 12:34:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 08:33:42 AM
Why on earth would university students want to see a porn movie in public? :lol:
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? ;)
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
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? ;)
:lol:
Okay, fair enough, there weren't even VCRs in the 70s.
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. :mad:
And yeah, Carmen Luvana is hawt. And one of my girlfriend's friend looks just like her... :perv:
Quote from: Drakken on April 06, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on April 06, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
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. :mad:
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 04:49:44 PM
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 ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
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.
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 06:21:30 PM
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 ?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 05:59:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 06, 2009, 06:31:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 06:29:51 PM
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.
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...).
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 06:29:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 06:48:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 06:50:53 PMIf 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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 06, 2009, 07:00:42 PM
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. :P
QuoteWhere 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.
QuoteMy 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.
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2009, 12:14:36 AM
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.
"Tom Selleck was King Ferdinand and I think Sigourney Weaver was Queen Isabella" :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 06, 2009, 07:19:51 PM
"Tom Selleck was King Ferdinand and I think Sigourney Weaver was Queen Isabella" :huh:
Yeah, it was a weird movie. :huh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffilm.virtual-history.com%2Fphoto%2F05%2Flarge%2F05135a.jpg&hash=4249c17187713cb0cf25f486617131c8a63eeda8)
"WHERE ARE YOUR NATIVE SLUTS WITH BIG TITS?" - Caligus Columbus
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.
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.
You were a teenager though, so the breasts loomed larger as it were :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 06, 2009, 07:29:34 PM
You were a teenager though, so the breasts loomed larger as it were :)
I was like 21 when I took that class. :Embarrass:
To be fair though, I was most likely stoned at the time. And I have a thing for darkies.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 06, 2009, 07:22:55 PM
...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. :huh:
Face it, kids; U of M is a state school, and the state has the final say. Kids don't like it, should've gotten into George Washington.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 07:35:37 PM
What do I have to do with that? I don't even know what you're talking about. :huh:
Sorry, Yi. Guess that's more Grumbler's shtick. I was preemptively defending my argument from being attacked with a hypothetical situation.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 06, 2009, 07:27:12 PM
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.
That's not large for you? Silicone has really perverted the perceptions of men, and made the average pair of breasts much uglier. BTW, it's amusing how the topless Indian chick has a tan line on her breasts.
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
Can that possibly be the case for any live college student these days? ;)
Females doing gender studies?
Quote from: Fireblade on April 06, 2009, 07:22:21 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffilm.virtual-history.com%2Fphoto%2F05%2Flarge%2F05135a.jpg&hash=4249c17187713cb0cf25f486617131c8a63eeda8)
"WHERE ARE YOUR NATIVE SLUTS WITH BIG TITS?" - Caligus Columbus
Why is he fighting a negro with a sword? I didn't see this movie so I have no idea how badly it raped history, but I assume it did to a large degree because Hollywood always does. :cool:
Quote from: DGuller on April 06, 2009, 10:49:53 PMThat's not large for you? Silicone has really perverted the perceptions of men, and made the average pair of breasts much uglier.
It's still an improvement over flat-chestedness. <_<
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2009, 12:45:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 06, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
Can that possibly be the case for any live college student these days? ;)
Females doing gender studies?
... Have *never* seen Internet porn?
Unless they are Mennonites, I find that hard to believe. :lol:
Oex and Drakken make good points. I don't understand why a university is banning an acitivity that is in no way illegal. Universities are supposed to be communities of scholars and students where the free flow of ideas are actively encouraged. forget about the constitutional arguments, BB was right when he said that universities are a special case. But for the opposite reason then he stated. Universities are not supposed to act as parental figures in the mold of telling their students what to do and forming what they think. Universities are supposed to create eniornments where students and scholars can think freely.
Also, even if the disturbing Nanny State overtones of this decision are not considered it is just plain silly. "Ok kids, no public viewing of porn at this university. Go back to your dorms and watch it on your computers."
They only reason the University made this call is because some people might think viewing the movie was morally wrong. But if that is the basis for the decision then what is next.
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2009, 12:45:21 AM
Females doing gender studies?
The first time I ever saw pictures of bondage and simulated rape was in a university course taught by a feminist professor who was making the point about how evil porn (and men) were.
Obviously feminism had moved on since then when I took women's studies. There was still alot of weirdness but they had backed off the whole 'sex and men are bad' thing. They just went on about the patriarchy and how it injured both men and women...but hurting women we are also hurting ourselves. :cry:
I have to say this story gives me a sudden desire to watch this fine film. Publicity as its best.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 12:04:24 PM
They only reason the University made this call is because some people might think viewing the movie was morally wrong.
And those people are parents who pay their kid's tuition and alumni who donate cash.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 12:11:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 12:04:24 PM
They only reason the University made this call is because some people might think viewing the movie was morally wrong.
And those people are parents who pay their kid's tuition and alumni who donate cash.
Which brings us back to the point Oex was making.
I think Universities should show porn in the student union 24/7 - not the cheap Skinimax version, but real hardcore. It would be for the best.
Quote from: PDH on April 07, 2009, 12:27:42 PM
I think Universities should show porn in the student union 24/7 - not the cheap Skinimax version, but real hardcore. It would be for the best.
Live performances would be best. That way the medium does not interfere with the message.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 07, 2009, 12:04:24 PM
Oex and Drakken make good points. I don't understand why a university is banning an acitivity that is in no way illegal. Universities are supposed to be communities of scholars and students where the free flow of ideas are actively encouraged. forget about the constitutional arguments, BB was right when he said that universities are a special case. But for the opposite reason then he stated. Universities are not supposed to act as parental figures in the mold of telling their students what to do and forming what they think. Universities are supposed to create eniornments where students and scholars can think freely.
Also, even if the disturbing Nanny State overtones of this decision are not considered it is just plain silly. "Ok kids, no public viewing of porn at this university. Go back to your dorms and watch it on your computers."
They only reason the University made this call is because some people might think viewing the movie was morally wrong. But if that is the basis for the decision then what is next.
Meh it doesn't bug me, and for this reason: it is merely a gesture. It isn't like the university is actually depriving those poor kids of porn, they can probably download the exact same movie on their computers (if not ipods or cellphones). By making a big deal of it, the University ignites exactly the sort of controversy that is dear to the hearts of student activists, placates sponsors, and gives the kids the title of something to look up when they have a spare ten seconds or so. Everybody wins.
Anyway, I can't imagine that many actually *want* to see porn in a public venue - what's the point of that? It would be a bit embarrasing to actually wack off in the student union. Much more amusing to use porn as a controversial talking point.