US university defies porn ban

The University of Maryland has decided to defy a state ban on the screening of obscene materials on campus. This could jeopardize state funding

by Luci Ellis

In Maryland, USA, state law demands that universities ban the screening of pornographic materials on campus. However, the University of Maryland voted Wednesday against adopting such a policy, claiming it would present too many legal and logistical challenges.

This is according to US education news website Insidehigered.com.

Porn screening threatens funding

The Maryland legislation was introduced after state politicians had stopped a scheduled screening of the USD 10 million porn film Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge at the University of Maryland in April this year.

They threatened to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding unless the screening was stopped.

Subsequently, the Maryland general assembly included in its budget bill the requirement that all public colleges and universities introduce a policy »on the use of public higher education facilities for the displaying or screening of obscene films and materials« by 1 December 2009. Failure to comply would jeopardise state funding.

Freedom of speech

Since then William E. Kirwan, the Maryland university system’s chancellor, and its Board of Regents had been considering the introduction of a ban, attempting to find a way to comply with the bill without restricting free speech.

Now, after months of research and deliberation, Kirwan has concluded that the best option is to defy the legislation and not adopt a policy.

Costly administrative burden

»It is my recommendation that the board ask that I write the joint chairs of the legislature’s budget committees expressing the view that a policy would not be in the best interest of the University System of Maryland or the state, because of the First Amendment issues such a policy would raise and because of the administrative burden and costs of implementing a potentially flawed policy,«says William E. Kirwan.

The board backed his suggestion unanimously, echoing his concerns about the potentially expensive legal repercussions of such a policy, which would compromise the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Deadline looms

Kirwan and the board also predicted that such a ban would be »a substantial new administrative burden« adding »not insignificant additional costs at a time when our budgets are all under great strain«.

It is still unclear whether the state legislature will accept the board’s decision, after the 1 December deadline.

luci@adm.ku.dk

• Send
• Share