In what has to be the most hilariously unconstitutional piece of legislation that I've seen in quite some time, senators in the Arizona state legislature have introduced a bill that would require all educational institutions in the state -- including state universities -- to suspend or fire professors who say or do things that aren't allowed on network TV. Yes, you read that right: at the same time the Supreme Court is poised to decide if FCC-imposed limits on "indecent" content in broadcast media are an anachronism from a bygone era, Arizona state legislators want to limit what college professors say and do to only what is fit for a Disney movie (excluding, of course, the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. After all, those films are PG-13!).
But don't take my word for it, here is the full text of the bill (SB 1467) as it currently stands:
15-108. Public classrooms; compliance with federal standards for media broadcasts concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity; violations; definition
A. If a person who provides classroom instruction in a public school engages in speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the federal communications commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio:1. For the first occurrence, the school shall suspend the person, at a minimum, for one week of employment, and the person shall not receive any compensation for the duration of the suspension. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the first occurrence from suspending the person for a longer duration or terminating the employment of that person.
2. For the second occurrence, the school shall suspend the person, at a minimum, for two weeks of employment, and the person shall not receive any compensation for the duration of the suspension. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the second occurrence from suspending the person for a longer duration or terminating the employment of that person.
3. For the third occurrence, the school shall terminate the employment of the person. This paragraph does not prohibit a school after the first or second occurrence from terminating the employment of that person.
B. For the purposes of this section, "public school" means a public preschool program, a public elementary school, a public junior high school, a public middle school, a public high school, a public vocational education program, a public community college or a public university in this state.
You catch all that? The bill doesn't even require that the profanity be uttered in the classroom, it just generally says that if a professor or, for that matter, a K-12 teacher, engages in FCC-regulated conduct or speech at all, he or she can lose their job. Of course, even if this were limited strictly to classroom speech it would still be laughed out of court as unconstitutional on its face.
Irony abounds in this law, especially when you consider that it would require law professors to be suspended for discussing two of the most important Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment and free speech on campus. The first is the ever-famous case of Cohen v. California (1971), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen could not be punished for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the slogan "Fuck the Draft." Indeed, the Court rightly noted in its decision that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." Meanwhile, one of the most important cases involving free speech on campus is Papish v. Board of Curators (1973), in which the Supreme Court protected speech that would never be allowed on network TV, including the headline "Motherfucker Acquitted." In defending the rights of student journalist Barbara Papish, the Court wrote, "the mere dissemination of ideas -- no matter how offensive to good taste -- on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency.'"
But the proposed AZ law goes much farther than the unconstitutional censorship in the Papish case. The law not only hobbles the ability to teach about sexuality and other non-Victorian topics, but it also puts teachers in jeopardy for teaching such mainstays as The Canterbury Tales, The Catcher in the Rye, certainly Ulysses, and probably every work by an obscure English writer named William Shakespeare. These days, such a law could certainly make any professor or teacher think twice about teaching Mark Twain or Kurt Vonnegut. And how on earth could you possibly teach a class about cinema studies without showing movies like The Godfather, The Graduate, Annie Hall, or for that matter, Pulp Fiction?
Legislators and, in many cases, campus bureaucrats need to know that real life and real education often includes "strong language and adult content."
(Special thanks to the National Coalition Against Censorship for bringing this bill to my attention!)
Follow Greg Lukianoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glukianoff
Let's look at this shall we?
Lion King- brother kills brother
Mulan- girl dresses as a man
Snow White- girl shacks up with 7 little guys then gets kissed while asleep by some random stranger
Hunchback of Notre Dam- deformed guy kills his fanatically religious stepfather
Beauty and the Beast- beastiality
Alladin- boy gets rid of meany dictator
Pirates of the Carribbean- sword fights, stripping a girl naked and gun fighting...oh wait they like that.
I could go on and on...but I will also mention the sexual pictures the cartoonist placed in the movies too.
"Freedom includes the right to say what others may object to and resent... The essence of citizenship is to be tolerant of strong and provocative words." — John Diefenbaker
Guess middle/high schools will have to start teaching Peter Pan. Oh, wait, people fight in that, no good...
What about Lady and the Tramp? Nope, vague reference to animal coitus...
Fantasia? Eh, naked angels running around at one point, that's a no-go...
Bambi! that's gotta be... nope, death in that...
Lion King? Nah, death in that too...
Aladdin? There's that whole "let's have sex" whisper thing...
Guess kids in AZ are going to have to read Babysitters Club (unless the girls have crushes on boys and kiss them) and listen to Raffi albums (nope, no good, there's a goose kissing a moose in one song) until they die.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." -Nadine Gordimer
Dr. Thompson
In Arizona law, the word "may" is permissive, indicating, as you suggest" an action which does not absolutely require a law professor to be suspended for discussing cases that include vulgarities. However, the word "shall" is mandatory. As the word "shall" is included in this proposed legislation, there is no room for debate. A law professor would be required to be suspended and, upon a third occurance, terminated from his or her position. Hence, this technicality in law demonstrates the utter idiocy of this proposed legislation. (Then again, as an Arizona resident, I am not surpised at the depths to which our legislators will sink to outdo themselves -- especially in an election year.)
If CBS wanted to do a story during primetime on the Fox v. FCC case, I don't think that they would be fined by the FCC for using the F-Word in explaining the case. It's at least not "mandatory" with the FCC's self-described "context based approach."
I can see how I didn't articulate that so clearly though.