RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceThe majority correctly argues that the University is a place for intellectual inquiry. To that end, it should foster speech that is intended to be a part of intellectual and artistic expression. Several issues arise, however, in airing pornography as ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
WHOA - I was undecided on this issue, but is this REALLY the best the dissent could do??
You make the claim that the porn clips will serve only as a "presentational tool," or a "visual aid." However, porn does "communicate," even if its main purpose is to produce sexual arousal. It communicates patterns of behavior for people having sex. What if the point of showing porn clips during this event is to highlight that some porn includes depictions of consent? Or depictions of putting on condoms? Or a certain way that actors and actresses interact? I think these hypothetical porn clips might be designed to counter people's expectations of what porn is. Maybe some of this can only be communicated, or at least be communicated most effectively by actual clips, rather than by descriptions.
With regards to your second point... May I remind you that you are talking about an event that hasn't taken place, the details of which haven't been planned yet? Let's look at what we don't know... Since some porn movies include shots where people aren't having sex, we actually don't know whether these "porn clips" will include depictions of sexual acts. Furthermore, we don't know whether they will be censored for nudity, or whether there will even be nudity. Seriously. As far as I know, LeTS hasn't really revealed anything. And OF COURSE they haven't! AFAIK, they haven't finished planning the event, and haven't begun publicizing. All of this silly discussion is based on a funding application and a quip by Amelia. So, while it's a fair point that some people would be unable to watch certain clips because of their sincerely held moral beliefs, we don't know whether this will be an issue.
Furthermore, if the event DOES include depictions that are objectionable to some people, this still wouldn't mean the event shouldn't be held, or shouldn't be supported by USG funds. It's not clear what the point of this talk is going to be. If it is meant to challenge people's beliefs about the content of porn, rather than about the morality of porn, maybe it's OK that some people are excluded? I don't know.
But even if actual sex and/or nudity will be shown, we STILL don't know whether this actually excludes people. What if LeTS decides to have a screening of relevant clips first, and then the talk--and then anyone who has a problem with porn can wait outside, and come in just for the talk?
Whether or not this event is problematic according to your criteria depends on things that you don't know yet.
Some people might have missed this quote, since it was buried in the second paragraph of the original article:
"We’re still in the planning stages, and we will release more information about the exact nature of the event when we know what the date will be."
So it is wrong for the USG to fund events that the squeamish will be likely not to be interested in?
This dissent is a huge fail. Ignores the actual point, which was about whether the USG should have funded the event. Instead it just goes for the expected attack on the porn itself, missing the mark completely.
Dissent, you suck.
also the funding will not be going towards the pornography itself but instead towards the lecturer, a "feminist porn producer," who will be merely showing short clips of porn in order demonstrate the points she will be making. As in cases of all academic/educational pursuit, the arguments and points of one side cannot not be thoroughly made with out alternative media or visual display, in this case it just so happens to be porn. Get over it.
=(
@Seriously: Plenty of arguments in academic discourse can be made without recourse to alternative media and visual displays. I don't need to see a video clip of revolution to understand what Marx was talking about; you can disagree with Robbie George's arguments on one-flesh union, but he still manages to make them without showing you what he means.
Which leads to a general point: YES, we don't know what the content of the talk will be. But was there really no way the speaker could make her arguments without showing porn? And the objections on this comment board still don't get at the point: if the porn screening is designed to encourage discourse on campus, it is inherently flawed, because many on campus are religiously prohibited from viewing pornography and participating in the rest of the presentation and discussion. Not squeamish. Not repressed or prudish. Religiously prohibited. It's probably more akin to fostering a debate on dietary restrictions by asking someone who keeps Kosher to eat pork, but that's a weak analogy that I'm sure will get torn down in a few seconds anyway.
@ '10
The speaker will not be illustrating "her arguments" with showing porn; she will be illustrating her arguments ABOUT PORN with showing porn.
Also, keep your religious "prohibitions" to yourself, and don't conflate them with real life prohibitions.
stage is right, as is the other guy who said that we don't know whether the porn clips will be separate from the talk.