University officials pulled out of a planned screening of a triple-X porno at the Hoff Theater this weekend after state legislators threatened to cut off tens of millions in funding.
Senators yesterday morning fast-tracked an amendment to the budget that would have denied state dollars to any college or university that offered hardcore pornography for public viewing, a move which some say treads on protected free speech.
Vice President for Student Affairs Linda Clement called off the film, Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge, after the debate erupted in Annapolis. The flick is the most expensive porn film ever made, and the event was to feature a talk from Planned Parenthood on safe sex practices.
“We thought it was an opportunity to have a dialogue revolving around pornography as a film genre and promote student discussion,” Clement said. “But the General Assembly certainly expressed their disagreement.”
Although the movie was given to the university for free, meaning that no state or student dollars were used specifically to plan the screening, it would be wrong to assume that the General Assembly has no jurisdiction over what state buildings are used for, Clement said.
Sen. Andy Harris (R-Baltimore and Harford) introduced the amendment, which called for all state funding to be pulled from state colleges and universities that screened triple-X adult films, with an exception for pornography viewed as part of an academic course.
Senate President Mike Miller supported the amendment and said it would have passed the Senate if the university hadn’t called off the film before it came to a vote.
“I don’t believe in censorship, but at the same time, I don’t think that film was appropriate in a state building on a state campus,” Miller said. “Yes, the amendment was overkill, but at the same time, it would have passed because it forced legislators to either vote for hardcore pornography or university funding.”
Miller said “cooler heads prevailed” in the debate in Annapolis shortly after they received word that the university had backed down, and the amendment was withdrawn.
The Hoff Theater student planning committee unanimously approved the screening, which was scheduled for midnight Saturday at a cost of $4 per ticket.
Saturday’s event would not have been the first time pornography was shown at the Hoff Theatre. In 2007, the university hosted Shakespeare Undressed, an event that looked at the great playwright’s impact on the adult film industry. Four years ago, the 1972 classic Deep Throat was screened.
Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery), a constitutional scholar and former editor of the Harvard Law Review, vehemently opposed state involvement in the issue.
“The proposed amendment was a direct affront to freedom of speech,” he said. “The Supreme Court has been clear that student groups enjoy First Amendment rights. It’s not the movie I would have chosen for myself or my kids, but that’s the beauty of the First Amendment: People who want to see it can go, and those who don’t want to don’t have to.”
Students offered mixed reactions to the film screening, but most agreed that state involvement in the matter would be an affront to freedom of expression.
“We are all of legal age,” said Eliel Talo, a junior government and politics major, adding that he wouldn’t have attended the viewing himself. “I don’t think showing a porn should apply to taking away funding because it’s a free speech issue.”
Others deemed the film inappropriate and said it would hurt the university’s reputation.
“[College Park] is the biggest university in the state,” said Aaron Johnson, a freshman economics major. “The state should have a say in what we show. It doesn’t look good for the college, and my parents wouldn’t approve of it.”
Adam Kissel, a director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that obscenity is a gray area under First Amendment protections and noted that laws against it are already on the books throughout the United States. The Supreme Court defines obscenity as causing unwholesome desires, violating the local community’s standards and being devoid of scientific, political, educational and social value, which Kissel said doesn’t hold up in this case. Furthermore, it is a dangerous road when the state can decide what content is acceptable on a college campus, especially with regard to student organizations, he said.
“It was wrong for legislators to threaten the university over the showing of the film, and it was wrong for the university to capitulate,” he said.
Raskin said the whole debate was ridiculous.
“The amendment succeeded in getting a lot of free attention and publicity for a pornographic movie,” he said. “Now, presumably some private theater will pick up the slack and show the movie.”
sticedbk@gmail.com
