MARYLAND — The University of Maryland is seeking input fromstudents on a new “porn policy,” which the school’s Board ofRegents plans to vote on Friday, Oct. 23. Some students feel the restrictions inthe policy would infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
Students were given a chance to voice their opinions at a forum held by theStudent Government Association on Tuesday, Oct. 13, where the SGA President anda member of the Board of Regents took questions and listened to concerns.
University officials have been asked to draft the policy after an eventlast March where Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge, a self-proclaimed”XXX” film, was to be shown on the campus. Maryland state senatorAndy Harris, R-Baltimore County, threatened to withhold funds from the school ifit allowed the screening to continue.
A partial screening of the movie took place April 6, along with adiscussion about free speech and pornography, according to The WashingtonPost. In response to the screening, Harris asked the state Board of Regentsto draft a policy that would require films shown on campus to have aneducational component.
“Basically, the policy would say that after a certain date, anystudent group … that shows a film for entertainment purposes will be requiredto provide an educational component,” SGA President Steve Glickmansaid.
He said students voiced concerns with what could happen if statelegislators become involved in determining what speech is allowed oncampuses.
“People don’t think that the state legislature should bemonitoring and limiting what should and should not be seen on campus,”Glickman said.
Sarah Elfreth, the governor-appointed student member of the Board ofRegents who attended UMD’s Tuesday night forum, said the policy isintended to go in to effect on Dec. 1, after the vote on Oct. 23.
She said the board is required to enact the policy because of thestate’s unique funding structure for education. Maryland legislators havethe authority to make cuts to the state budget after it has been created by thegovernor, putting legislators like Harris in the position to compel schools toenact policies, lest their funding be cut.
“It’s a precarious situation,” Elfreth said.
Elfreth said the board is working to address the concerns of the studentswhile still complying with Harris’ request. She said the board has hadhelp from Robert O’Neil, former University of Virginia president anddirector of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression,to ensure the policy does not violate First Amendment rights.
“One of my goals is to make it a little more clear. Students areasking, and rightfully so, whose going to be in charge of enforcing this policy,and who is going to be in charge of determining the educationalcomponent,” she said.
Elfreth said she hopes deference will be given to student groups todetermine exactly what an “educational component” means.
“Films screened for entertainment purposes are screened for thatreason,” she said. “Students feel like they’re constantly inclasses and doing homework. Sometimes they want to unwind.”
Harris issued a statement to the press explaining his motivation inencouraging the creation of the policy. In the statement, he said he isconcerned with the issue of taxpayer protection, and had no intention ofinfringing on First Amendment rights of students.
“My goal in unequivocally not to interfere with freedom ofspeech,” Harris said in the statement. “This is simply a matter oftaxpayers footing the bill for the screening of pornographic material and Ithink that’s an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.”
Maryland state senator Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery County, a law professorat American University’s Washington College of Law, said the issue hasbeen overblown and is missing the mark of where the state Senate’s focusshould be directed.
“At the beginning, everyone was afraid of Sen. Harris’
[policy],” Raskin said. “But the energy of one of these moral panicsdissipates rather quickly, and people come back to their First Amendment sensesand realize how silly it all is.”
Raskin said the decision to watch or not watch the film should be left upto the individuals, not the university.
“The whole point of the First Amendment is if you disapprove of atriple-X movie, you can simply boycott it,” he said. “Nobody isforced to see anything.”