While the LSU community struggles with its perenial freedom of speech debate about the purple and gold Confederate flag, another university is engaged in a First Amendment debate of its own.
Members of the University of California, San Diego’s student government, the Association of Students, are struggling to decide whether pornography should be protected as free speech on the campus’ television station, Student-Run Television.
Kate Pillon, AS member and history senior, found herself thrust into the debate when Steve York, SRTV producer and history senior, super imposed her face onto the face of an adult film star he was filming for an SRTV pornographic movie.
The movie showed York having sex with a woman who appeared to be Pillon.
York said he decided to include Pillon’s face because he thinks she has been hypocritical in her position against pornography being shown on SRTV.
“This is a debate we have been having here for a while,” York told The Daily Reveille. “When I showed the original porn movie in February, it was just a 10 minute video and no one really paid attention. She’s said before she has no problem with sex and porn being shown off campus, so why not include her in it?”
While Pillon said she thought York’s use of her face in a pornographic movie was “emotionally hurtful,” she said it brought about an important discussion among UCSD students.
Pillon said she spoke out against pornography being shown on SRTV because she thinks that since AS oversees SRTV and funds the station they should be allowed to control what is shown.
“I have always been a staunch supporter of the freedom of speech, and I always will be,” Pillon said. “We’re not saying he cannot make pornographic videos, but we think it’s not a freedom of speech issue because it’s not a public forum. We provided the venue, so we can control it.”
After York broadcast the video using her face, AS voted 14 to 8 to ban “graphic sexual acts” – but not nudity – from SRTV and the resolution will go into effect as soon as Christopher Sweeten, AS president, signs it into law.
Before the ban, pornography could be shown on the station after 10 p.m.
York said he thinks a pornography ban will cause more problems in the debate because a ban “galvanizes those opposed to it.”
“You have to fight speech with speech,” York said. “The minute you censor something and drive it underground, the people who follow this kind of thing become galvanized and they become much more vocal in their opinions. If you don’t censor it or give it any attention, it will die out.”
Grant Schrader, psychology senior and editor of the campus newspaper The Guardian, said he thinks York may have tried to push the envelope with pornography because he wanted to incite a debate about freedom of speech rights among students.
“He’s just trying to make the campus a more lively place,” Schrader said. “He’s done this kind of thing before. This is nothing new.”
York admitted he may have tried to spark a debate on UCSD’s campus, but, he said he thinks it is necessary.
“Maybe deep down I thought it would push the issue of freedom of speech rights,” York said. “But if you’re going to start a debate, make it fun and entertaining to bring more students into the fold and to keep tempers down.”
Pillon said she will probably not pursue legal action against York because she thinks a better resolution will come from the student dialogue about the issue.
“I’m not going to engage him in some sort of legal fight because that’s what he wants,” she said. “I’d rather fight this by discussing how we should address the issue as a community.”
Paul Baier, LSU Law Center professor, said if Pillon wanted to sue York, it could be difficult.
Pillon could be considered a public figure since she is a member of AS, Baier said, and using her face in a pornographic film could be seen as a parody, which is protected by Supreme Court precedent.
Baier cited former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion in “Hustler Magazine v. Falwell” 485 U.S. 46 (1988), in which the Rev. Jerry Falwell lost his libel case against Hustler magazine because the court decided parodies of public figures were protected by the First Amendment.
Falwell sued Hustler because he was shown having sex with his mother in an outhouse in a mock advertisement.
Baier said the case may not apply to university public figures because the standards for a university may be applied differently.
“But the standards of conduct for students and faculty at a university cannot be as free-wheeling as, say, street fighting,” Baier said. “There is an interest in public decency at a university. That is not to say that we aren’t protected by the First Amendment, but a university setting could be considered different in some ways.”
Though Pillon may not want or be able to sue York, she said she is glad her embarrassment can move the discussion forward.
“This is such a great debate to have and one that needs to happen,” she said. “I’m glad to be part of the debate voluntarily. It’s the involuntary part I don’t like.”
 
Contact Jeff Jeffrey at [email protected]