Is watching porn on campus protected by the Constitution? The Student Government Association rarely deals with sexy matters, but they will tomorrow when they vote on a policy inspired in part by hardcore adult films.

As you may remember, last semester there was quite the scandal over the university administration’s cancellation of the triple-X movie Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge screening at the Hoff Theater. Once the dust settled, the state government called on the Board of Regents to come up with a porn policy for each of the 13 institutions it oversees. But the SGA, undoubtedly influenced by vocal student activists, is concerned such a measure could hinder freedom of speech on campus.
Freedom of speech for students is hardly something that only affects those of us at this university. At James Madison, the administration recently expanded the section of their Student Handbook to prohibit “lewd, indecent or obscene conduct or expression” not only on campus but off of it as well. According to their student paper The Breeze:
Essentially, this minor change limits free speech anywhere from the streets to the Internet.
…the change is due to an off-campus incident last semester that left the judicial council unable to charge the student offender. The student in question was reportedly as peeping into off-campus students’ windows and masturbating in front of them.
Since the incident occurred off campus, under the previous policy the violator could not be punished.
The re-wording of student policy drew fire from FIRE, or The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Further southwest at University of Arizona, university police arrested a student late last month for protesting budget cuts by writing in chalk on campus sidewalks, and then arrested another student for chalking in protest of his arrest. After the student body expressed overwhelming support for the protesters, including passing out thousands of chalk sticks on campus, the university president asked police to drop the charges.
In the upcoming session of the Supreme Court, two freedom of speech cases will be scrutinized right off the bat. And both of them have to do with movies. Today, the nation’s highest court heard United States v. Stevens, which involves the legality of selling photographs and films that depict the maiming and killing of animals. Jonathon Turley of the Los Angeles Times has the details:
Robert J. Stevens of Pittsville, Va., was convicted under the law for selling videotapes of fighting pit bulls and sentenced to 37 months in prison. However, the appellate court struck down the law as unconstitutional, holding that there is no exception to the 1st Amendment for animal cruelty as there is for obscenity. The government is seeking to get the court to create another exception to the 1st Amendment, in what free-speech advocates fear will be part of a continued erosion of this fundamental right.
The other case, which has already been debated in a rare advance convening of the justices, examines “Hillary: The Movie”, a 90-minute film released by the conservative group Citizens United during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run.
The country waits with baited breath at these crucial tests for Sonia Sotomayor, who drew criticism from first amendment defenders for a ruling she made while serving as a judge in Connecticut that, of all things, limited student free speech. In 2007, a Connecticut high school student was barred from running in a student election after school officials found out that she had called them “douchebags” on her blog. Ultimately, Sotomayor ruled in favor of the administrators in the case of Doninger v. Niehoff. Turley again:
Sotomayor was opposed by some free-speech advocates, in part because of her vote in Doninger vs. Niehoff, in which the appeals court upheld the right of school officials to punish students for out-of-school speech — in what some considered a major blow to both the 1st Amendment and student rights.
Notably, the panel acknowledged that it was not bound by existing precedent from the Supreme Court in denying free-speech protections to students.