In Maryland, USA, state law demands that universities ban the screening of pornographic materials on campus. However, the University of Maryland voted Wednesday against adopting such a policy, claiming it would present too many legal and logistical challenges.<\/p>\n
This is according to US education news website Insidehigered.com. <\/p>\n
The Maryland legislation was introduced after state politicians had stopped a scheduled screening of the USD 10 million porn film Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge<\/em> at the University of Maryland in April this year.<\/p>\n They threatened to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding unless the screening was stopped. <\/p>\n Subsequently, the Maryland general assembly included in its budget bill the requirement that all public colleges and universities introduce a policy \u00bbon the use of public higher education facilities for the displaying or screening of obscene films and materials\u00ab by 1 December 2009. Failure to comply would jeopardise state funding.<\/p>\n Since then William E. Kirwan, the Maryland university system\u2019s chancellor, and its Board of Regents had been considering the introduction of a ban, attempting to find a way to comply with the bill without restricting free speech. <\/p>\n Now, after months of research and deliberation, Kirwan has concluded that the best option is to defy the legislation and not adopt a policy.<\/p>\n \u00bbIt is my recommendation that the board ask that I write the joint chairs of the legislature\u2019s budget committees expressing the view that a policy would not be in the best interest of the University System of Maryland or the state, because of the First Amendment issues such a policy would raise and because of the administrative burden and costs of implementing a potentially flawed policy,\u00absays William E. Kirwan. <\/p>\n The board backed his suggestion unanimously, echoing his concerns about the potentially expensive legal repercussions of such a policy, which would compromise the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. <\/p>\n Kirwan and the board also predicted that such a ban would be \u00bba substantial new administrative burden\u00ab adding \u00bbnot insignificant additional costs at a time when our budgets are all under great strain\u00ab.<\/p>\n It is still unclear whether the state legislature will accept the board\u2019s decision, after the 1 December deadline.<\/p>\n luci@adm.ku.dk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The University of Maryland has decided to defy a state ban on the screening of obscene materials on campus. This could jeopardize state funding<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":24042,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-international","expression-news_article"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\nFreedom of speech<\/h2>\n
Costly administrative burden<\/h2>\n
Deadline looms<\/h2>\n