Students at the University of Maryland were denied a planned screening this weekend of the XXX movie Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge. (It’s a takeoff on Disney’s Pirates of the Carribean series. Yes, Disney. No, nothing’s sacred. Move on.) Yesterday, the student union canceled after pressure from state lawmakers who threatened the school’s funding if the screening went forward. Said the state Senator, Andrew Harris, "Occasional viewing of porn is more dangerous than occasionally lighting up a cigarette."
When I first heard about the U. of Maryland circus, I have to admit, I rolled my eyes. On the one hand you have self-righteous lawmakers looking for any excuse to grandstand even if it means trampling on First Amendment rights. On the other, you have entitled college students doing something that looks suspiciously like teen-aged acting-out. (And really, it’s not even original acting-out. Back in 1999, Yale’s Porn ‘n’ Chicken" club planned to make a porn movie.)
After reading the ABC News coverage of the story, though, I realized there was much more to the screening than I’d originally thought. UCLA had already shown the film to 850 people in December and included a question-and-answer session with the filmmakers where they were grilled about, among other things, the exploitation of women. And Maryland had scheduled a Planned Parenthood rep to speak about safe sex at their screening.
Of course, the Pirates II filmmakers may be getting the last laugh. Part of the production company’s marketing campaign to offer the XXX movie free to college campuses, no doubt realizing that it would stir up all kinds of controversy and raise their product’s profile. What do you think PopWatchers? Should the movie have been canceled? Is pornography dangerous enough to justify the Maryland state legislature threatening to punish astate university for showing it? And did the state of Maryland just give lots of free publicity to a porn movie?
Are they above age? Yes. Is porn illegal? No. Do we have first amendment rights anymore? Apparently not. The law makers should be ashamed of themselves. The duty of our government is to protect our rights not decide for a group of above age adults what they can and cannot do. What America do we live in anymore?
I heard this movie is chock full of gratuitous swashunbuckling. On a serious note, I’d love to know how occasional viewing of porn is more dangerous than occasional cigarette-smoking. That’s just asinine.
“Occasional viewing of porn is more dangerous than occasionally lighting up a cigarette”, is he kidding???
As a regular consumer of both, I HIGHLY disagree.
Listening to the debate on the MD Senate floor it was all I could do not to laugh out loud in the office.
Apparently all it takes is one viewing of p0rn to become addicted. Furthermore, apparently they’ve never heard of the internet where p0rn is pretty available (ya know, from what I hear…)
This is not trampling on first amendment rights. The government isn’t saying that the movie can’t exist or that students of age can’t go rent it or whatever they have just made the decision to put funding elsewhere rather than here if the students go ahead with this. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need a porn movie to reach the students and questioning pornographers about womens rights is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard. The first amendment protects my right to free speech but it doesn’t force anyone else to pay for or distribute my free speech and certainly doesn’t force the government to have to fund it.
This is one of those subjects where the logical choice it’s to be neutral about. Being on either side of the fence opens up debates. Neither side is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, just opinionated on what they believe is considered the right one. We as a society are learning or at least should be noting there are just some debates NOT worth arguing about.
How is viewing porn more dangerous than smoking a cigarette? We are all familiar with the effects of smoking cigarettes. But viewing porn? My partner & I can attest to the fact that it has in fact enhanced our personal lives, and kept us interested in each other rather than losing interest.
How is viewing porn more dangerous than smoking a cigarette? We are all familiar with the effects of smoking cigarettes. But viewing porn? My partner & I can attest to the fact that it has in fact enhanced our personal lives, and kept us interested in each other rather than losing interest.
Samurhino – FYI the Student Union where the film was to be shown does not receive, nor was it built with State funds. No State funds were to be used or given in exhibiting the film.
Only in America do we have so many ridiculous rules about sex and sexuality… Get over yourselves Maryland…
This silly puritanical view of sex is still much too prevalent in our society. How on earth is viewing a porn movie and then having a frank discussion about it worse than smoking? That is simply a ridiculous attitude, whether you like porn or not. It’s like this with movie ratings. If something has to do with sex, or even has ‘porn’ in the title, like Kevin Smith’s movie, it is threatened with the dreaded NC-17 rating. Violence, drugs, language? No problem. A little sex? Oh God! Won’t someone think of the children! We need to take more cues from European countries when it comes to sex. There’s nothing wrong with it, and nothing wrong with talking about it.
What’s porn?
go terps
I don’t want to bash UM, but I saw the first “Pirates” in the union at Carnegie Mellon University, granted it was a bunch of nerds, but it was the fullest I’ve ever seen it.
What I can’t figure out is why anyone would want to sit in a room with a bunch of other people watching porn. Wouldn’t it be better to just watch that stuff at home?