Spring Break
Spectator editorial: Come clean on 'Porn'
Group should have been up front about sponsoring event
Issue date: 4/24/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion
Some people are as secretive about their opinions on porn as others are about actually owning porn.
According to an April 21 article in The Spectator, Student Impact sponsored a presentation from former sex addict Michael Leahy entitled "Porn Nation" April 17 in Schofield Auditorium. While the group is well within its rights and should, in fact, be encouraged to bring in speakers such as Leahy, it did not advertise beforehand the religious aspect of the presentation. Before beginning the speech, audience members were warned there would be religious content in the presentation. Jake Mlsna, a Student Impact staff member, said in the story that the group did not want to advertise the religious side of "Porn Nation" because it thought it might turn people off from attending the event.
Student Impact was wrong for not more clearly showing their sponsorship of the event in advertisements prior to the event. It was misleading of them to simply put the words "Porn Nation" on pamphlets and signs around campus, which could have lead to students thinking the presentation would have both sides represented. Being secretive about its connection to the event suggests that the group wouldn't be interested in what Leahy had to say if it didn't mislead students about its sponsorship. Student Impact should not be ashamed to have its name attached to events or speeches on campus.
But this is not to say it should be required to put what exactly the content of the speech on advertisements. To ask Student Impact to declare exactly what Leahy was going to say is tantamount to asking the Forum Series organizers to put people's political stances in ads. Students going to talks on campus should expect some sort of opinionated content and groups putting on these events shouldn't be expected to spell out speakers opinions beforehand.
Most importantly, though, students at "Porn Nation" had the choice to leave. If they were truly offended by religious speech, they could have simply left. Anyone who stayed the whole presentation after the warning cannot complain about not expecting the content of the speech.
According to an April 21 article in The Spectator, Student Impact sponsored a presentation from former sex addict Michael Leahy entitled "Porn Nation" April 17 in Schofield Auditorium. While the group is well within its rights and should, in fact, be encouraged to bring in speakers such as Leahy, it did not advertise beforehand the religious aspect of the presentation. Before beginning the speech, audience members were warned there would be religious content in the presentation. Jake Mlsna, a Student Impact staff member, said in the story that the group did not want to advertise the religious side of "Porn Nation" because it thought it might turn people off from attending the event.
Student Impact was wrong for not more clearly showing their sponsorship of the event in advertisements prior to the event. It was misleading of them to simply put the words "Porn Nation" on pamphlets and signs around campus, which could have lead to students thinking the presentation would have both sides represented. Being secretive about its connection to the event suggests that the group wouldn't be interested in what Leahy had to say if it didn't mislead students about its sponsorship. Student Impact should not be ashamed to have its name attached to events or speeches on campus.
But this is not to say it should be required to put what exactly the content of the speech on advertisements. To ask Student Impact to declare exactly what Leahy was going to say is tantamount to asking the Forum Series organizers to put people's political stances in ads. Students going to talks on campus should expect some sort of opinionated content and groups putting on these events shouldn't be expected to spell out speakers opinions beforehand.
Most importantly, though, students at "Porn Nation" had the choice to leave. If they were truly offended by religious speech, they could have simply left. Anyone who stayed the whole presentation after the warning cannot complain about not expecting the content of the speech.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
who needs religion
posted 4/25/08 @ 1:54 PM CST
Then shouldn't all class catalogues have the professor's political, religious, and cultural views listed so that all students know exactly what kind of influence they may be subjected to. (Continued…)
jacob
posted 4/26/08 @ 4:21 AM CST
This article sums up to me the lack of intelligence in the Spectator Editorial Board. Do you honestly not know how to write an article that doesn't undermine your own point?! Your article was a complete waste of time for me to read and a complete waste of ink and paper to print. (Continued…)
Jake
posted 4/27/08 @ 10:37 PM CST
I respect the Spectator's opinion in regard to how we promoted our event. I feel as though we did nothing wrong, but the editors are entitled to their opinion. (Continued…)
Post a Comment