The University of Maryland and Free Speech

Last week while playing host to groups of fourth graders from around Maryland, the State Senate took time away from discussing the current financial crisis to curb students' First Amendment rights at the University of Maryland by threatening to cut school funding in response to plans to show an XXX-rated movie. That may be a little disingenuous - they sent the elementary schoolers out of the room before they began the discussion.

The debate arose after the University of Maryland, College Park student union announced that it would screen Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge this past Saturday. The student programming committee responsible for selecting which movies the University theater shows claimed to have chosen the adult film as an attempt to provide students with an alternative to partying and drinking, and also because they thought it would bring out a crowd. They had originally planned to have a representative from Planned Parenthood speak prior to the movie about safe sex practices.

In response, Sen. Andrew Harris, R-Baltimore County, threatened to introduce an amendment to the state budget that would withhold state funding from any university that sponsors or allows a public showing of a XXX-rated movie, such as Pirates II.

Because the studio, Digital Playground, offered the movie to the UM student union free of charge, as it has with other schools including UC Davis and Carnegie Mellon University, no school finances were going to be used in the screening, and any other expenses would be more than made up for by the minimal price of entry. Still, the University decided to cancel the showing.

But early Monday night about 200 students, together with a free speech panel, numerous television news camera crews and members of the print media watched clips of the movie anyway after the panel discussed free speech and pornography.

Harris contends that his amendment was not directed to curtail First Amendment rights, it was an effort to dictate how taxpayer dollars can be used on college campuses. Since the University of Maryland receives $424 million annually from state endowments, the university's capitulation to the senator's demands is not surprising. However, Senator Harris's contention that this is not an issue of free speech fails to adequately address the greater consequences of his actions.

To be fair, the issue itself is not directly related to free speech. There is legislative history concerning government endowments and spending on a federal level. The senator's tactics are neither new nor unique to the current situation. In a case that made it to the Supreme Court in 1987 (South Dakota v. Dole), South Dakota challenged the federal government's ability to withhold funding for noncompliance with government mandated conditions. In this instance it was the withholding of highway funding for not increasing the drinking age to 21 years of age and the right of the federal government to withhold these funds was upheld. Obviously the two cases are not completely similar, but the different applications are comparable.

But that distinction does not serve to accurately portray the greater principle. The First Amendment has long protected individuals, artists and pioneers in numerous disciplines, from government infringement on their rights to push the envelope and challenge conventional norms and create works of art that have withstood the test of time. From Samuel Clemens to George Carlin, artists have defied the idea that limitations can be placed on the practicing of their craft within reason. The question comes in where we have to draw the line. The slope is only slippery if we grease the road.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision to show XXX-rated movies on a college campus. In fact, I don't believe they should be shown anywhere public. Even as the highest budgeted adult film ever created (with a $10 million price tag) and with what must be an all-star cast of porn-stars and crew-members, Pirates II is probably still bad. And people shouldn't have to be exposed to it if they don't want to be. But no one is twisting their arm to go watch. This isn't an orientation program or required viewing for a class. This is a movie showing. And whether you believe porn degrades women or it liberates female sexuality, the fact remains that some women feel empowered by it. Whether you believe it fosters a false depiction of human sexuality or it frees us from our Victorian prison, porn has, without a doubt, made the public discourse of sex more common and pervasive than Foucault could have imagined. If you don't believe me, try having a conversation with a male between the ages of 14 and 32. Whether you believe pornography represents the decay of moral fiber or it represents the triumph of freedom over oppression, you must recognize that porn in itself is pretty innocuous. It's not public nudity, and it's not on cable television. It's intent is merely to please an audience and I'm fairly certain it serves its purpose. And the only way I can be sure that I'm able to protect my right to free speech is by protecting the rights of those more outspoken than I am.