# My School is full of dumbasses

Need I say more?

http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2009/04/06/News/Students.Push.On.With.Porn-3698133.shtml [Broken]

"In the end, we were faced with the choice of forfeiting $45 million or showing a porn film," he said. Showing your porno film and causing the school to loose$45 million, you sure did stick it to the man students. It's not like we had a furlough or anything due to budget constraints.....

Last edited by a moderator:

## Answers and Replies

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org
Danger
Gold Member
That quote is kind of stupid. It should be, "In the end, we were faced with the choice of forfeiting $45 million or not showing a porn film." And that's an educator speaking? High five anyone? That quote is kind of stupid. It should be, "In the end, we were faced with the choice of forfeiting$45 million or not showing a porn film." And that's an educator speaking?
You're right, good call!

I really don't understand the point these kids are trying to make by showing a porno film. They really think they must be on some bad-*** crusade using freespeech to show this pointless movie. I suggest they find something better to do with their time, like getting an actual major.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
That quote is kind of stupid. It should be, "In the end, we were faced with the choice of forfeiting \$45 million or not showing a porn film." And that's an educator speaking?
Exhibit 1 for the thread's case.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
I really don't understand the point these kids are trying to make by showing a porno film. They really think they must be on some bad-*** crusade using freespeech to show this pointless movie. I suggest the find something better to do with their time, like getting an actual major.
In my experience, college kids aren't at college for an education.

uh oh, I think I'm on their side, Cyrus. government has no right to censor the "arts", and withholding funding over what some people find distasteful is a form of censorship. I think freedom of speech should be defended over even the most trivial stuff. It's all or nothing to me.

so yea, this is really stupid and trivial... all the more reason to make a point about it.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
The university is free to show the film.... there's simply consequences involved if they do. Say a professor has a federal grant to perform certain research and decides to do something else with the money, is it not the government's option to refuse to fund that professor? I wouldn't call it censoring him...

disregardthat
High five

Danger
Gold Member
I'm really of mixed minds about this. I'm totally against censorship, as long as no one is getting hurt. Where I draw the line is when a crime is committed, such as a 'snuff film' or an on-camera rape. Even then, it's almost impossible to tell whether it's real or just good special effects and acting. What about 'fight' videos, where the fight itself is illegal but the participants are willing? That dichotomy is really troublesome to me.
On the other hand, biting the hand that feeds one is not the brightest approach to survival. If the government provides funding, then it's only fair that they have some say regarding the conditions under which it is given. (I don't know how the law in the US works in that situation.)
My bottom-line feeling is that the students should be allowed to screen whatever they want, since no one is being forced to attend. Would that same politician threaten to withhold funding if it were an offensively right-wing Christian meeting on the agenda?

The university is free to show the film.... there's simply consequences involved if they do. Say a professor has a federal grant to perform certain research and decides to do something else with the money, is it not the government's option to refuse to fund that professor? I wouldn't call it censoring him...
this is different, first of all it's not an either/or situation; the professors are still following the curriculum (presumably).

also, this is in the arts, not sciences, so it's apples and oranges. government has no right to decide what is acceptable and not acceptable as art. period.

James Joyce's Ulysses was prohibited for over a decade in England (and I believe the U.S.A too) after being published, for obscenity. I'm not comparing hardcore porn to one of the masterpieces of the 20'th century in quality, of course, but freedom of speech is all or nothing. and the arts should especially be a reflection of that. should there be a threshold in the aesthetic quality of the art being censored before it becomes OK to censor?

so Joyce is not OK, but porn is... what about Joyce and South Park? who draws the line between what is OK to censor and what isn't?

again, yes I agree this is trivial; but it is precisely because it is so trivial that it should matter and they shouldn't back down. if it were at my school, there wouldn't stop to think for a second before I join the cause. my parents lived through the dictatorship in Argentina (my dad was even arrested and almost tortured when he was a student, but escaped [quite cleverly actually ... but it's a long story]). point is, maybe I have strong emotions regarding the subject, but for me freedom of expression is one of those slippery-slope situations, and I'm not willing to give up an inch of it.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Oh but who said it was scientists who are the only one who do research and receive federal funding? The government may not have a right to say a piece of art is acceptable or not but they surely have the right to decide whether or not they have to fund it. Publicly funded universities and federal grants are not constitutional guarantees.

It would be nice to have some more context as to where this film was going to be shown, however.

the state set a "dangerous precedent" of infringing on academic freedom, said Kenton Stalder
So this junior is aware that the story might pop up on google searches from his name ?

It would be nice to have some more context as to where this film was going to be shown, however.
Can you tell me the academic value of spending time watching these kind of productions ? Better hang around PF and gossip about it.

Oh but who said it was scientists who are the only one who do research and receive federal funding? The government may not have a right to say a piece of art is acceptable or not but they surely have the right to decide whether or not they have to fund it. Publicly funded universities and federal grants are not constitutional guarantees.
the school is not asking for funding to produce a porn film. the funding that would be denied is going towards other areas of the education that have nothing to do with the film being shown... that's called extortion. this is like saying "you are free to publish the results of your private research, but we will not give your school money to build that new gym it needs next year". one has nothing to do with the other, it's just being used as a means of extortion to stop the person from doing something that a few individuals find distasteful.

Last edited:
uh oh, I think I'm on their side, Cyrus. government has no right to censor the "arts", and withholding funding over what some people find distasteful is a form of censorship. I think freedom of speech should be defended over even the most trivial stuff. It's all or nothing to me.

so yea, this is really stupid and trivial... all the more reason to make a point about it.
Hardcore porn isn't "the arts". The point is, this is stupid and they are doing it to be 'coool mannn'.

Danger
Gold Member
Hardcore porn isn't "the arts".
There could be some room for argument there. 'Flesh Gordon' was a hugely funny parody of the SF genre, with a good script and state-of-the-art special effects for its day, and was released as soft-core porn. The original, however, was hard-core.
In general, I agree with you... but there can be exceptions.

I never heard so many new pron movie names in one evening in my life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30066221/ [Broken]

Great, it's in national press.....

Last edited by a moderator:
Danger
Gold Member
I never heard so many new pron movie names in one evening in my life.
They can be quite clever. Not necessarily the scripts, but the titles.

Senator looks dumber than the students. I wonder how he even became a sen. in the first place

On side note, I was wondering if the people like this sen watched porn in their youths?

Hardcore porn isn't "the arts".
that's not the issue though!

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire
Meanwhile, Andrew Harris will not stop talking: "Pornography is poison. They want to hook our kids on pornography."
yea...

the whole point is that NOBODY has the right to draw the line on what can and can't be censored. I don't care if they're fighting over a 3 hour film that consists of a still image of a piece of dog-poo while the benny hill theme plays on a loop.

Danger
Gold Member
a 3 hour film that consists of a still image of a piece of dog-poo while the benny hill theme plays on a loop.
You stole my movie idea, you bastard! I'll sue!

that's not the issue though!

yea...

the whole point is that NOBODY has the right to draw the line on what can and can't be censored. I don't care if they're fighting over a 3 hour film that consists of a still image of a piece of dog-poo while the benny hill theme plays on a loop.
First off, I think the senator is as big an idiot as the students. However, I think the students need to find something better to do with their time than trying to show a porno film for attention.

As for sensorship, it happens all the time: in industry and by the government. Your premise is wrong.

This whole thing seems pretty silly. Did it start out as a professor showing a film in class (i admit, I only skimmed it)?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-porn-watching-cat.jpg [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: