Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:03 PM ET, 04/ 6/2009

Showdown Set on U-Md. Pornography Plan

By Mike McPhate

Poster for "Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge." (Digital Playground)

University of Maryland students are planning to screen a hard-core porn movie on the campus tonight in defiance of protests from state lawmakers.

The movie was initially scheduled to be shown in the student union Saturday. But university officials canceled it after Maryland legislators sought to withhold state funding from the campus.

What's your take?




Also, join a discussion with two experts on either side of the issue at 2:30 p.m. today.

By Mike McPhate  | April 6, 2009; 12:03 PM ET
Categories:  University of Maryland, schools  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Readers Respond to Milloy on the Military
Next: U-Md. Porn Controversy: A Wrapup of Views

Comments

I would be sympathetic with the free speech argument if, in fact, free speech were truly protected on college campuses. In reality, only speech that comports to the strictures of a left-leaning, progressive agenda is respected and tolerated. That which runs counter to the politically correct agenda is not tolerated, sometimes with the most extreme violence. Witness the events last year when the anti-illegal immigration group Minutemen were invited to speak at Columbia University. Before the speaker could begin, a riot broke out with protesters storming the stage and bringing the presentation to a halt before it ever began. The Minutemen never were allowed to express their views. If you haven't seen this shameful, un-American suppression of free speech, check it out on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc&feature=related

In this particular instance, I would ask the UMCP professors if they would just as zealously defend a screening of "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny" or perhaps a documentary on race produced by David Duke and Stormfront.

Posted by: hisroc | April 6, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

This is really idiotic! The movie will probably sell like hot cakes now with the controversy. If the legislator just left it alone, it would have been just another obscure porn flick. Now it's going to be a poster boy against the bad, big brother government. I bet the producers are laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: mqpham | April 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Time place and manner restrictions on speech have always existed. What is wrong with a time place and manner restirction on porn? While its harm is not as immediate as yelling 'fire' in crowded theater, it is just as harmful to society and it ought to be restricted.

Posted by: carrferg | April 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Time place and manner restrictions on speech have always existed. What is wrong with a time place and manner restriction on porn? While its harm is not as immediate as yelling 'fire' in crowded theater, it is just as harmful to society and it ought to be restricted.

Posted by: carrferg | April 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

One aspect this screening that is being ignored thus far is whether the uniformed viewer will be able to follow the plot and recognize the characters of Pirates II. Will there at least be a quick summary of the events in the first Pirates film?

Posted by: Corn_Laden | April 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time. Isn't college about exploration? Exactly who gets hurt with a farcical porn movie? Puritanism and American prudishness have wrought untold damage on our country. Violence is almost completely unrestricted on film and what do we have? A violent culture where human life is valued right below ipods and designed clothes. If porn would promote people to have more sex--clearly what we need--thereā€™d be a lot less sad, destructive people around.

Posted by: thadude33 | April 6, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: amazd | April 6, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Maryland's economy is in the toilet. People are losing their jobs, their homes, etc.

And all this politician can do is dream up stupid useless drama like this?

Really, man, get a life. Or, better yet, actually try to do some good in the lives of those people that depend on you. You know, the people that elected you.

Posted by: HillMan | April 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Creating a hostile educational environment, either by showing porn or even in advertising for it, is hardly academic freedom. It is sexual harassment. It is sexual imposition.

Posted by: ooyah32 | April 6, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"Really, man, get a life. Or, better yet, actually try to do some good in the lives of those people that depend on you. You know, the people that elected you".

I would make a minor change to this statement and apply it to whining sex- addled students who want to show the so-called "film":

"Really, man, get a life. Or, better yet, actually try to do some good in the lives of those people that need it. You know, people who are less fortunate than you, who attends a taxpayer-supported institution, most likely on your parent's dime".

Posted by: capsfan77 | April 6, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The protagonist looks really cute.

Posted by: DCResidentEmployee | April 6, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

The school should decide whether they wil or not enforce the rules.

If the school endorses pornography and the exploitation of women, then let them stand proudly in their defiance. Indeed, let them welcome all regardless of 'legal' age restrictions, or of dress (or non-dress). And let them accept the consequences of their stance.

If they prefer instead to teach that all human behaviour should be bound by basic rules of decency and order, then they should refuse to endorse the products of the porn industry, and enforce the prohibition. In that case, they should warn in advance those who choose to break the school rules that they will be expelled if they defy the administration -- and they must indeed expel those that do so.

After all, any coward can be a defiant rebel when there are no consequences.

Courage, on the other hand, would require doing what's right regardless of the personal cost.

Surely those courageous students that feel they must express themselves by watching girlie flix will bravely accept their expulsion.

Similarly, the UM administrators that feel they are being unfairly censored will take the high road and refuse public funding.

Andrew P

Posted by: AndrewP1 | April 7, 2009 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Maybe if the actors weren't paid, and it was a reality movie of couples having sex and not being paid, then would it be considered porn or people doing what comes natural in life, the desire have sex?
What is the big deal about all this though?

Posted by: keithlb28 | April 7, 2009 8:30 AM | Report abuse

I bet that if you set up a Snort install on one of UMD's subnets, you'd find some interesting results.

Porn exists. Most is free. People look at it. Get over it.

Posted by: mason08 | April 8, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Most of the students are living off of their parents, scholarships, trust funds, etc. The students are therefore, not "adults". They are still impressionable little freakazoids and should not be able to make grown up decisions such as to whether to watch porn or not to watch porn. If they are allowed to watch porn, streaking might come back in porn. Tongue in Cheek?

Posted by: charlietuna666 | April 12, 2009 8:22 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company