For Republicans under thirty, a major policy preference tends to be for those parts of the GOP platform endorsing individual liberty, and effective national defense. While the current administration has dropped the ball in its handling of Pyongyang thus far, the bigger obstacle to future Republican success may well be in efforts to promote individual liberty. Indeed, the very essence of American freedom has increasingly been turned on its head in recent years. In no instance is this more readily apparent today than at the University of Maryland.
As reported locally, and in the Washington Post, students at the flagship school in the University System of Maryland sought recently to use school expenditures to show a pornographic film on campus. While the initial proposal was dropped, the matter became a topic of discussion in state government and on local radio. Needless to say, the students who intended to air the film with university funds were upset. Nonetheless, despite their claims to the contrary, the first amendment rights of these students were not and are not being violated in being barred from screening the film publically. If the issue concerned a private university, then the students may have a point, but this issue concerns a public university.
Americans of any and all persuasions should fear this notion that free speech is so broad a right as to require that the rights of others be subsidized through taxation. As much as the students would like to make this about pornography, it’s not; the issue is whether or not taxpayers in a state (already short on funds, thanks in part to lousy fiscal policies under the current leadership) should pay the bills for a university with apparently enough money to screen adult films in non-academic contexts. That the American Civil Liberties Union may have a stake in this dispute is absurd and hypocritical, and only makes a mockery of the organization.
If only the free speech zealots in College Park, Maryland cared half as much when the publically-funded speech was a locally-supported small town display with religious symbolism. Republicans have cause to worry when the same people fine with the President of the United States ordering around automakers and banks are upset when a state government makes its feelings known regarding actions at state schools.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- In Defense of Michael Steele - July 9th, 2010
- McDonald and Kagan - July 2nd, 2010
- The Petraeus Dilemma. - June 23rd, 2010
- On Paul and Blumenthal - May 22nd, 2010
- Lessons from Arizona - May 12th, 2010
Good call – I think the ‘I can do whatever I want’ attitude toward liberty makes the entire movement come across as uneducated and really undercuts the message itself through its apparent hypocrisy.
James, nice thoughts here. I would have to disagree on the free speech position, though. If it were held tonight, it would be free speech because the statement has become larger than the film in and of itself. While I would agree that the film is not necessarily free speech, the airing of a film discribed by others and, therefore, raising a controversial view point – even in the face of political oppression of the surrounding community – is making an unique statement.
Had the film been aired then funding cut, without any public fanfare or warning of monitary damages if the filmed aired, would not be protected speech. If it were shown today, as an act of defiance, embodies the very essential liberty of the minority over that of the majorative state.
You have to be kidding me. There was no use of taxpayer funds in showing this porn! Did you read the original press release or jump on the story later? In the release it clearly states that the production company didn’t charge the university, there was no student activity fee charged to the university, and the price of admission would be $4 dollars per student: more than enough to cover the cost of running the projector and paying the staff. Please make sure you have fact-checked your background knowledge.
The building, the projector, the electricity, and the staff are paid for in part by the state, are they not?
Also, as an event using a university space, the administration-whose salaries are paid in part by taxes-would need to sign off on the plan.
I stand by my post.
I doubt the Bush Administration’s response to North Korea would have been any different, frankly.