Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Dirty Politics


"Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge" had been scheduled for a screening Saturday. (Digital Playground)

The University of Maryland's student union canceled the screening of a porn film Thursday after lawmakers moved to block funding to the campus.

By Mike McPhate  |  April 3, 2009; 12:11 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Piling On'
Next: Life With Lady Luck

Comments

The film was scheduled to be shown in the student union building for fund raising purposes.

Posted by: friendlylady | April 3, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

This is a public university whose facilities are funded with tax dollars. It gives porn the air of respectability for a public institution to offer it to our impressionable sons and daughters. Rather than lead young adults down the path of debauchery, university leaders should model how adults relate to each other in a caring world. Lechery and exploitation debase love and humanity. However "safe" anyone tries to make casual sex for entertainment, real people get hurt. How about a celebration of the women's basketball team instead? Not popular enough?

Posted by: wonders7 | April 3, 2009 8:44 AM | Report abuse

The government has every right to withhold funding. These films should be watched in the dorms during keg parties.

Posted by: jercha | April 3, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

i don't see anything wrong with porn, but if you are watching it in school and at work,then there is a problem

Posted by: sunshine24 | April 3, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

The funding for this movie was to come from student activity fees (payed by students) and from ticket sales. Government money was not going to be used for this so it's rediculous that they would threaten to pull funding over this.

Those same student activity fees fund religious groups (excellent separation of church and state there), a group called "UMD Cigar Aficianados", and a Pro-Life group called "Students for Life". Because I don't agree with some of the mission statements for these groups should I be able to demand the State withhold funding from the University? Of course not! The same should go for this situation.

Posted by: UMDTerpsGirl | April 3, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Whether or not porn has a place on campus is irrelevant. What the legislature did was blackmail and censorship, plain and simple. I sincerely hope the state senator who proposed it is defeated soundly in his next election.

Posted by: cjmark | April 3, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

The problem here is not that pornography is being screened. It's that those who oppose pornography know that they can't control other people's desires. The logical position would be to say that any film can be shown anywhere (although films with extreme violence or sexual content could be restricted to those 18 and over). Those who find any given film offensive can simply not buy a ticket to it. But that's not enough for fundamentalists. They know that, to paraphrase "Field of Dreams," "If you screen it, they will come."

Posted by: danpink | April 3, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with the way it was handled by the government; it should have been taken care of at the school level. However, I think the cancellation of the movie was a step in the right direction. Being that our society currently has a huge problem with pornography. It doesn't make sense that the Program Director felt that this type of movie was a good idea as a stress reliever. Showing this movie would have been a straight contradiction to solving the problem of pornographic addiction.

Posted by: Neka1 | April 3, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives always talk about how they are against big government intervention in peoples lives but big government intervention is completely fine when it comes to issues of sex. A legal student funded activity attended by adults should not be under the microscope of anybody at Annapolis. I wonder what would happen if lawmakers threaten to pull school funding because UMD women are wearing shorts that are too short.

Posted by: nicholasje2003 | April 4, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

A sane society would see explicit sex in video to be like explicit cooking or exercise. Most would the of the "how to" variety and some would be for fun. How many learn to cook from a coking show? Or event try the techniques shown? Some might be like the travel and eat shows that generate appetites or are just for fun.

But no state legislature would be concerned or no student would be in danger from watching.

This may actually create a market for reasonable porn. The current product seems designed for teen agers who are curious. Very few films have been made that an adult would want to watch.

The legislature ought to stick to adult activities that are really adult.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | April 6, 2009 5:47 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company