MD assembly still funding college porn..

[foodcritic]

Student-Hosted Porn Screening Threatens College Funding


Pirates of the Caribbean, meet Deep Throat.

A porn flick making its way across college campuses is drawing stiff resistance from critics who say universities shouldn't pay for smut. But the film's supporters say it doesn't rise to the legal definition of obscenity, and the schools have a First Amendment right to show it.

The film in question -- "Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge" -- is produced by Digital Playground, which calls itself "the world leader in adult filmmaking and interactive formats boasting the largest HD library available." The film that has been airing on campuses is unrated, although Digital Playground has produced an R-rated version. It stars "contract girls" Jesse Jane, Tommy Gunn and Gabriella Fox, and it has a pirate theme that goes way beyond booty.

Among the colleges that have screened the film are the University of California-Davis, UCLA, Carnegie-Mellon, the University of Maryland and Northwestern University. The screenings usually include discussions led by Planned Parenthood or professors on First Amendment rights and pornography.

But the University of Maryland's planned screening has infuriated one state lawmaker, who tried to pass legislation to withhold school funding for universities that don't develop policies that note "the serious social and health concerns associated with screening pornographic film."

Sen. Andrew Harris tried to attach his proposal Wednesday to force the governing boards of the state's public universities to adopt policies on pornography before the schools receive any capital funds for the next fiscal year.

"The health problem with pornography is not birth control," Harris said of Planned Parenthood's participation. He noted that porn creates addicts, breaks up families and degrades men and women.

"Our taxpayers think it is a misuse of taxpayer funds," Harris said.

Harris' effort did not survive a 35-12 vote favoring a ruling by state Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. that the amendment was out of order.

Student-Hosted Porn Screening Threatens College Funding - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Oh and it continues with a comment by another left wing zealot who is after all employed by UM.

Robin Sawyer, a human sexuality professor at the University of Maryland, said Harris' proposal infringes on intellectual rights and he hopes it doesn't infringe on his classroom instruction too.

"Is the state going to appoint a pornography watchdog?" he asked. "How can I apply for that position?"

Sounds to me like he already has that position. What an idiot...intellectual rights and porn should never be used in the same sentence...


Your tax money at work....GO Terps!!

[PsyOps (Premo)]

And go figure that same "educational" institution is aimed at banning prayer at their graduations.

UMD Senate Votes to Drop Commencement Prayer

The University of Maryland College Park's student Senate has voted to remove prayer from the commencement ceremony, ending a three-year debate on the contentious issue.
The 32-14 vote was the culmination of a lengthy debate about the separation of church and state at a public university.

"It's like a lot of things in life, it's not an issue that's easy to deal with," said Ken Holum, who chairs the faculty and student University senate. "Since it's a state institution, why should we have religion, there should be a wall some say between the state and religion," Holum said.

Student senators voted unanimously Monday to end the non-denominational prayer, saying it was a student issue.

"Why should we have religion?"

BUT LET'S HAVE OUR PORN BY CRACKY!

[hammishsqueak]

As a graduate of UMD, I am very disappointed that this nonsense is even up for debate. It's embarrassing. I consider myself fairly open-minded, but there is no reason why porn should be shown at Hoff! Asides from being inappropriate, do these idiots even know what goes down in theaters in these types of situations (uh, no pun intended...)?

[puggymom]

Whether it is appropriate or not ceases to be the issue. It is whether the legislature of the state of MD should be allowed to censor all in the name of morality. It does not matter the content, there is nothing illegal, that I know of, in showing pornography to adults.

[foodcritic]

Originally Posted by puggymom

Whether it is appropriate or not ceases to be the issue. It is whether the legislature of the state of MD should be allowed to censor all in the name of morality. It does not matter the content, there is nothing illegal, that I know of, in showing pornography to adults.

Sad, typical liberal response.. lest it be a white/black supremacy advocate having a "rally" to educate. Than the outrage MAY show up.

Here Here for publik education

[foodcritic]

Originally Posted by puggymom

Whether it is appropriate or not ceases to be the issue. It is whether the legislature of the state of MD should be allowed to censor all in the name of morality. It does not matter the content, there is nothing illegal, that I know of, in showing pornography to adults.

Maybe 18 y/o in HS can also watch it as part of their edukation..

Oh wait if you send your kids to GMHS they do that in the bathrooms...

[puggymom]

Originally Posted by foodcritic

Sad, typical liberal response.. lest it be a white/black supremacy advocate having a "rally" to educate. Than the outrage MAY show up.

Here Here for publik education

I do not know how to respond to that as I feel as though it is a typical liberal you're a 'homophobe' or 'racist' response.

Oh and btw in every election I have voted since turning 18 it has been for the Republican.

[LastSon]

I didn't realize that the Maryland General Assembly was put in place to regulate not only morality, but also what is taught in college classrooms.

Yay nanny state!

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by LastSon

I didn't realize that the Maryland General Assembly was put in place to regulate not only morality, but also what is taught in college classrooms.

Yay nanny state!

So as a parent, who might be paying for your child's college, you are okay with your tuition money paying for your child to view campus-sponsored porn? And don't forget our tax dollars do go into these colleges AND General Assembly are there to represent the people of MD who pay tuition into this college, not the University. They are acting their interest.

[puggymom]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

So as a parent, who might be paying for your child's college, you are okay with your tuition money paying for your child to view campus-sponsored porn? And don't forget our tax dollars do go into these colleges AND General Assembly are there to represent the people of MD who pay tuition into this college, not the University. They are acting their interest.

But it was not the university per se...it was a student club.

Student-Hosted Porn Screening Threatens College Funding - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Using state money as a leverage is also a "red herring," he said, because state money is not being used to show the film.

"Student clubs are almost always funded through mandatory student fees ... The Supreme Court has ruled that those fees aren't actually funding for the schools" so "the university can't impose its viewpoint on how they spend those fees, neither can the student government," Shibley said.