Teaching about Pornography and Free Speech

As someone who teaches a free speech course, I have been following closely the case of a tenured professor of sociology at Appalachian State University who showed a documentary about pornography in her class and, due to student complaints, has been suspended from teaching.  According to an article in Inside Higher Ed, there is a back story to the case--student athletes complaining about how the professor discussed athletics in a prior class, a claim by the professor that she is being punished for earlier criticisms of the university administration etc.  So, it is likely a complicated mix of issues and concerns. For more on the case see the coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

But, it is the impact on what happens in the classroom--and the implications for all faculty--that I find the most compelling.  What is amazing to me is that she checked the video out of the university library, suggesting it is okay there but not in the classroom.  I guess we should be clear here.  She did not show pornography in class--but a documentary about the pornography industry called The Price of Pleasure.  

You can watch the trailer here. Be forewarned: As the site suggests, "This trailer contains scenes of sexual activity and aggression from pornographic videos."   I warn you, dear reader, in part because the professor in this case was supposedly suspended because she did not warn students about the content of this film and a few students went to the administration to complain.  Is my own hesitancy what chilled speech looks like?  Or am I just being responsible?  Good question to think about ....

So, really two issues for me: the potential silencing of faculty speech in the classroom by administrators (academic freedom) and the potential impact on faculty speech when students don't "like" what they hear in a class--prompting administrators to react.  The latter, and this may be a stretch, strikes me as an example of "student as consumer and the customer is always right" attitude that is seeping into higher education.  Since I am of the school that sometimes real learning comes from uncomfortable moments--when you disagree with someone, find something offensive and have to think about why, or are just confronted with a world-view that is unfamiliar.  As the Inside Higher Ed article about the case notes, "discussion of how professors present relevant but potentially objectionable course materials -- and how colleges respond when students complain."

Gail Dines, a scholar who has been very critical of the porn industry and was involved in the making of the film in question reacted to the case in an article in Counterpunch.  As Dines claims, the suspension can't be separated from the content of the film shown. "Price’s crime." writes Dines, "was to provide a progressive critique of the porn industry, rather than wax lyrically about how porn empowers women sexually."  And, as Dines also notes:

"I think we should be speaking about porn in the classroom, but not as a fun industry that sells fantasy, but rather as a global industry that works just like any other industry with business plans, niche markets, venture capitalists and the ever-increasing need to maximize profits."

Now I am not sure this is at issue in the case as much as Dines makes out, but she does raise an interesting question about the content of faculty speech in the classroom--and what happens when that content challenges those in power.  Isn't that what academic freedom is supposed to protect?

Cigarettes, Warning Labels and Free Speech

Last year, the FDA issued new rules requiring tobacco companies to use graphic images on cigarette packages to educate consumers about the dangers of smoking and the "risks they are taking," as Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said in May 2011, as reported in the following PBS Newshour story at the time:

Watch Cigarette Warnings Get Graphic, but Will Smokers Be Deterred? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Tobacco companies have been challenging these regulations as an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights to free speech--yes here we go with corporate free speech again!  As NPR recently reported, a case working its way through the courts was argued in a Washington DC federal appeals court in mid-April.  The FDA's implementation of the new regulations has been blocked by a judge because the rule would "violate the First Amendment by unconstitutionally compelling speech."  "Requiring a corporation to state something against its will," as Ken Paulson from the First Amendment Center notes, "is called compelled speech, and is only permissible with the narrow purpose of warning consumers."  The question of course is whether such regulations go "too far" and do, in fact, compel tobacco companies in an unconstitutional way.  On the other hand, should not public health concerns trump these corporate interests?

As a New York Times editorial on the case suggests, courts have often upheld regulations on commercial speech, which enjoys much less protection than political speech, as a general rule, under the First Amendment. One court has suggested that these warning labels are not "compelled speech."  The Times linked to a story about the case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the government had a "significant interest in preventing juvenile smoking and in warning the general public about the harms associated with the use of tobacco products," as the judge in that case noted.  Here's another account about the case. 
 
Of course, this sounds like a preview of a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, given not only the constitutional implications but also the sheer power of Big Tobacco.  Can't imagine they won't give up without a fight.

Free Speech in the Military

A case involving a U.S. Marine who created a Facebook page criticizing President Obama is raising questions about the degree to which military personnel enjoy a full range of free speech protections. The Facebook page, "Armed Forces Tea Party" included a statement from the Marine that he would "not follow unlawful orders from Obama" according to a report about the case.  Apparently, there has been a policy, since the Civil War, about what active duty military can express themselves, including criticism of the President.  As the San Francisco Chronicle story about the situation notes:

"According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president."

 For a video about the case from the Associated Press see here.  This raises some interesting questions for not only about free speech in the military, but also for employees in general.  Public employees have more limited protections than others, but what about in the private sector?  How is social media changing the terrain for these questions?  Much to think about here...